Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Inflation

Richard Thomson: What recent steps the Government have taken to tackle the impact of (a) inflation and (b) increases in the cost of living on households and businesses in Wales.

Chris Stephens: What recent steps the Government have taken to tackle the impact of (a) inflation and (b) increases in the cost of living on households and businesses in Wales.

Simon Hart: Among a range of measures, the Chancellor recently announced a £200 energy bill discount for households across the whole of the UK, including Wales, as well as £180 million to the Welsh Government in recognition of the council tax energy rebate in England.

Richard Thomson: About 1.5 million households across the UK depend on heating oil for their domestic energy needs. Last September, households could have expected to pay about £250 for a 500-litre delivery. Last week, those prices had risen to anywhere between £600 and £900 for a delivery of the same volume. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about how that burden could be mitigated for households at the mercy of that unregulated section of the energy market?

Simon Hart: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this question. I am in that particular bracket myself, so I know exactly what he is talking about. There have been some interventions already. As far as conversations with the Chancellor and his team are concerned, they have been numerous up to and including this morning, but I think the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I ask him if he can possibly wait till roughly 12.30 this afternoon, when the Chancellor will spell out exactly what his own proposals are.

Chris Stephens: With rising inflation and a cost of living crisis, a recent YouGov survey of Welsh voters found that 71% felt that their personal financial situation is set to worsen over the next 12 months and 27% said that they will struggle to pay their next energy bill. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Chancellor should turn his energy loan into a grant and reverse the £20 universal credit cut?

Simon Hart: Again, I can only say that it would be unhelpful and inappropriate for me to predict and prejudge what the Chancellor will be saying in the Chamber in a matter of minutes. All I can say is that these are conversations—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I would like to, but I am not going to. These conversations have been a regular part of—have dominated—the Wales Office’s connection with the Treasury in the last few days and weeks. As I say, the hon. Member has not got long to wait, and I hope he can bear with me.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jo Stevens: The boss of oil giant BP said last month that it had more money than it knows what to do with, which is completely the opposite situation to that of households right across Wales that cannot cope with record inflation and astronomical energy bills under the watch of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, so why will he and the Chancellor not agree to a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers?

Simon Hart: There are two points I would like to make. The first one I have already made, which is not to prejudge what the Chancellor is going to say in his statement in a few minutes’ time, which will address this and I hope numerous other issues that are occupying the minds of Members across the House, in fact. As far as the second point is concerned, I am afraid a slightly well-trodden path of the Opposition is to confront every possible problem by finding somebody and taxing them. We do not believe that is necessarily the answer, because we want energy companies to be part of the solution and also to be part of future and ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, and they will not do that—and will not be able to do that—if all the Government’s responses are simply, as I say, to identify them and tax them. It may be a populist gesture, but it is not actually going to solve the problem that we both wish to try to resolve.

Jo Stevens: I am afraid the Secretary of State is completely out of touch with public opinion on this. Polling this week, published by 38 Degrees, shows that 69% of the Welsh public say that the Government’s energy bill loan package is not enough to help those struggling with their energy bills, and 67% support Labour’s windfall tax because it would mean £200 off energy bills now and £600 off energy bills for the hardest-hit households in Wales. This would be a tax on the unexpected profits of oil and gas companies, so why is he on the side of those oil and gas companies, not on the side of the Welsh public?

Simon Hart: I think that just defaulting to a 38 Degrees petition as if that is some kind of solution to a very complex and long-standing problem is a cheap and populist way out of this. We are taking a more responsible view, as I hope she will hear from the Chancellor later.  There have already been numerous interventions—for example, we have provided an additional £180 million to the Welsh Government in this particular context—so I urge the hon. Member not just to press the petition button and think that that is all the Opposition have to do. We have to do a lot more than that if we are serious about addressing the long-term challenges that face us all. None of us is without this: we all have constituents with these problems and we all know exactly the challenges she refers to.

Freeports

Mark Fletcher: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on establishing a freeport in Wales.

Alexander Stafford: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on establishing a freeport in Wales.

Jacob Young: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on establishing a freeport in Wales.

Simon Hart: We have had constructive discussions with the Welsh Government on the importance of establishing our freeports programme, and we continue to work closely on that as a matter of urgency.

Mark Fletcher: The east midlands freeport will see nearly £9 billion of new investment, and tens of thousands of new jobs created in our region. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Welsh Government really cared about the people of Ynys Môn, they would support the efforts of our colleagues to deliver a freeport, and bring more jobs and investment to the island?

Simon Hart: If nothing else, I think the Wales Office Parliamentary Private Secretary has won a bet in getting her constituency up in lights again on the question of freeports. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about something we have been campaigning on for some time, and this fantastic scheme will create long-lasting sustainable jobs across the whole UK. I hope he will forgive me, however, for not trying to prejudge what that process may conclude regarding the actual venues. We are expecting a number of very enthusiastic bids into the scheme once it is launched. I think we can describe that announcement as “imminent”, so my hon. Friend, and the residents of Ynys Môn, do not have long to wait.

Alexander Stafford: The flow of goods through free trade is a critical priority for prosperity, whether in the village of Wales in Rother Valley, or in the great nation of Wales. What role does my right hon. Friend see for freeports in that, and how might a freeport in north Wales—for example in Anglesey—help to improve the problems associated with a central corridor and the working of the Northern Ireland protocol?

Lindsay Hoyle: He means Holy Island.

Simon Hart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concept of freeports is indisputably positive, and others who have gone down that route with the launch of English freeports are already able to report inward investment, and good sustainable jobs that will contribute to our economic  recovery as well as our net-zero ambitions. As I said, in Wales there will be a number of very high quality bids. We have committed in the manifesto to at least one freeport in Wales, and hopefully we may be able to expand on that over time. The long wait for a decision, and the many months of wrestling with the Welsh Government to reach a conclusion that we can all live with, are nearly at an end.

Jacob Young: A freeport in Wales, especially in Anglesey, sounds like a great idea, just like in Teesside, where the UK’s largest and first post-Brexit freeport has already led to the announcement of thousands of future jobs in new green technologies. Does the Minister agree it is vital that we all get behind our freeport policy, which will help to level up and deliver the change we need in our areas?

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which gives me the opportunity to highlight that freeports are already a resounding success in his area. We do not need to go any further than that, because the work that he and the Mayor, Ben Houchen, have done in that area is fantastic. Anyone who had any doubts about what freeports can bring to a region need only look at my hon. Friend’s area to see that they make a serious and positive contribution to future economic prosperity.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Secretary of State extols the virtues of a freeport in Wales, but will he assure the House that he will not allow DP World, which is responsible for the shameful sacking of 800 P&O workers, anywhere near the construction or operation of any freeport in the United Kingdom?

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady raises a timely point, and I hope that the comments made by the Transport Secretary, and others, will reassure her that we are deeply disturbed by the way that action was taken. As she knows, it has been referred to the Insolvency Service, and if there are demonstrable transgressions in that process, that could lead to criminal prosecutions. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance she needs as far as freeports in Wales are concerned.

Chris Elmore: In the ongoing work and discussions on freeports with the Welsh Government, does the Secretary of State agree with the Welsh Government’s three basic and rather easy requests: parity over decision making; fair funding between freeports across the nation so that Welsh Government funds do not have to be diverted away from vital projects in Wales; and that the ethical standards of the Welsh Government—which are certainly higher than those of the UK Government—will be met if any freeport is delivered in Wales?

Simon Hart: I hope I can assure the hon. Gentleman. The fact that we are, I hope, imminently to make an announcement that involves the UK and the Welsh Governments, means that both parties in this long-running negotiation are satisfied. As I said, I do not want to prejudge the announcement or what the bidding process may conclude, but we can absolutely agree that there are a number of important issues. We have taken more than two years to reach this point, and I hope the Welsh Government, and everybody else involved in the process, will be satisfied by the outcome.

Hywel Williams: The Secretary of State has said that freeports in Wales will create 15,000 jobs, but where is his evidence that any of the economic benefits that flow from that will reach ordinary Welsh workers rather than the usual fat cats, such as DP World?

Simon Hart: The answer to that question, if the hon. Gentleman does not want to believe me, comes from port authorities, local authorities, stakeholders and others around Wales—people, including in his constituency, are looking at the evidence for freeports and the kind of upsides that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) mentioned for Teesside a few moments ago. It might be a step too far for the hon. Gentleman to believe me, but he should believe his constituents and his community who believe this to be long overdue and are very anxious that we conclude it as soon as possible.

Hywel Williams: From welcoming Ukrainian refugees to safeguarding seafarers’ rights, the Government consistently disappoint. The Welsh Conservatives have now joined Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru to call for an expedited visa process to ensure simple, fast, safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK and to remove the requirement for Ukrainians to provide biometric evidence prior to leaving Ukraine. The Secretary of State is Wales’s man in the Cabinet: what is he doing to ensure that those jointly agreed Welsh humanitarian aims are achieved?

Simon Hart: I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Numerous conversations have been ongoing between the UK Government and the Welsh Government about the Ukraine refugee position. I stress that this is not a competition. We are working together to try to get the best outcome in a severe humanitarian crisis, and that means that we are putting our political differences to one side, and I hope that he can join us in that endeavour. We are incredibly grateful to local authorities, charities, the public in Wales and, of course, the Welsh Government for making this happen at the pace that it has. I spoke to the Ukrainian ambassador only last week, and he is also incredibly grateful for the way in which Wales, in all its different forms, has stepped up to the mark to try to resolve the problem. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support in our attempt to achieve those ambitions.

Alun Cairns: Most of the focus on the freeport opportunity has understandably been on maritime ports. Can I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the merits of Barry port? In addition, can I ask him to pay particular attention to Cardiff airport, which is closely associated with Barry port, and assure me that it will be central to his thinking?

Simon Hart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. He is right to point out that freeports are not necessarily confined to coastal areas: some of the best examples of freeports in the UK are inland freeports. They are also not all identical, and there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for the whole of the UK. We are trying to be as flexible as we can in looking at all the different dynamics, including Cardiff airport, to make sure that when the bids come in we are not too prescriptive and we look at all the issues with the most open mind that we can.

Police Funding

Liz Twist: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the impact of the level of police funding for Wales on crime.

David Davies: On levels of crime, Office for National Statistics data for the year ending September 2021 show that crime levels per capita in Wales are below the national average across England and Wales. As for funding, this Conservative Government will always be the party of law and order, and that is why I am pleased to be able to say that we are putting £820 million into policing next year, an increase of £40 million.

Liz Twist: In the nearly 13 years the Government have been in power, police staffing has fallen by 25,000. Across the UK, there are 7,000 fewer police community support officers on the streets than there were in 2010. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government, which does not have jurisdiction over policing, have stepped in and funded 500 PCSOs and will fund a further 100. Does that not show that the Tories are happy to see rising crime and an increase in victims, and it is only Labour which is taking action to keep our communities safe?

David Davies: What it shows is that the Welsh Government will have had a record increase in spend of around £2.5 billion over the next couple of financial years. What I can also tell the hon. Lady is that 603 additional police officers are being allocated for Wales, 479 have taken that opportunity and there are still 100 vacancies. As somebody who spent nine years as a special constable, I recommend to anyone who wants to serve their community that they should consider joining a police force in Wales.

Gerald Jones: English police forces are fully reimbursed by the Government for the cost of training police officers. In Wales, the Home Office has reimbursed only half the cost, leaving Welsh police forces with a shortfall of over £2 million. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State persuade their Cabinet colleagues to meet the historical funding shortfall in full, so that Welsh police forces are no longer penalised and are in future treated equally with English ones?

David Davies: This is actually a quite complex problem, and far more complex perhaps than we have time for in this forum. The real problem is that the Welsh Government are failing to discuss with the Home Office how the apprenticeship scheme works. I urge the hon. Gentleman to talk to his colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government, get them to recognise the apprenticeships schemes and ensure that police officers are properly trained and police forces fully refunded.

Cross-Border Transport

Chris Matheson: What discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Welsh Government on cross-border transport connectivity with north Wales.

David Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I discuss regularly with Cabinet members and members of the Welsh Government a range of transport matters. It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Gentleman last week to discuss cross-border connectivity in north Wales. The Union connectivity review recognised the importance of the north Wales transport corridor and the Government are carefully considering the recommendations before reporting back.

Chris Matheson: I thank the Minister for meeting me last week. He will understand that if north Wales is to get the full benefits of HS2, the line from Crewe to Chester and on to north Wales will need to be upgraded, including work at Chester station. Will he get on to his Transport Department colleagues and get them to get a move on with making a decision on that upgrade work?

David Davies: Yes. I thought the hon. Gentleman made a very powerful case last week about the importance of improvements in Chester. I think he would agree that improvements to the rail service in some parts of England will benefit passengers in Wales and vice versa. I fully agree with him about HS2. It will have an enormous impact and deliver improvements not just for passengers in England, but for passengers in Wales and especially north Wales.

Aberconwy

Robin Millar: What recent steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to help support people living in Aberconwy constituency.

David Davies: Levelling up is all about places like Aberconwy. From our investment in a new tourism and innovation hub in Llandudno to improving digital connectivity for over 60 public buildings across Aberconwy, we will give everyone in Wales the opportunity to flourish and ensure that no place is left behind.

Robin Millar: I thank the Minister on behalf of residents for his answer and for the UK Government’s interest. The UK Government have funded a book for every schoolchild in the UK to commemorate the platinum jubilee. A bilingual version has been printed for schoolchildren in Wales. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that schoolchildren in Wales and Aberconwy—and even in Ynys Môn—will receive a copy of that book?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is correct. The UK Government wanted to celebrate the enormous achievement and the enormous commitment to public service that has been made by our monarch, and have produced the book bilingually to ensure that schoolchildren across Wales are able to read bilingually about the contribution made by Her Majesty the Queen. I am sure they all look forward eagerly to receiving their copy. The UK Government are working with the Welsh Government to ensure that that can happen imminently.

Roads Review

James Davies: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the impact of their roads review on transport infrastructure.

Simon Hart: The Wales Office has regular discussions with the Welsh Government on cross-border connectivity. I am afraid that Labour’s plans are more of a roadblock than a road review. I urge the Welsh Government to focus more on investment and on delivering their 2016 manifesto commitments to sort out the M4 relief road and various other vital links.

James Davies: Five years ago, the A55-A494 network resilience study, commissioned by the Welsh Government, recognised the strategic importance of the route and the fact that it is often above capacity and vulnerable to disruption. How does my right hon. Friend believe the roads review may impact on plans for UKNET, a high-performing strategic transport network for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Simon Hart: I know both the roads that my hon. Friend refers to—I travel on them regularly—and I am well aware of their importance to his constituency and the region’s economic future. The UK Government’s contribution to the road infrastructure is second to none. Some liaison is clearly necessary with the Welsh Government about certain aspects of that. We hope that they will publish their strategy soon and look again at their road strategy, because a simple moratorium on road improvements and new roads is not the way to restore economic prosperity in his area or anywhere else.

Steel Industry

Jessica Morden: What steps he is taking to support the steel industry in Wales.

Simon Hart: The UK Government recognise the importance of the steel industry in Wales and the UK. The £30 million loan secured for Celsa is a demonstration of our commitment to the steel sector. Our response during the pandemic helped to secure more than 1,000 steel jobs in Wales.

Jessica Morden: While he was campaigning for Brexit in 2016, the Prime Minister told steelworkers in Wales that it was:
“Mad that we can’t cut steel energy costs because of EU rules”.
Now that we have left the EU, is it not madder that the Government have still done little to cut sky-high energy bills, which are a massive burden on our steel producers in Wales?

Simon Hart: I thank the hon. Lady, who has been an unbelievably effective campaigner for the steel industry in her area and in Wales more widely. The Business Secretary and I met the steel sector the other day at the Steel Council. The issue she has raised was an important part of that and the Business Secretary was able to offer some reassurance. I do not want to prejudge today’s statement from the Chancellor, but as we have the opportunity, I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in thanking the International Trade Secretary for her overnight success in lifting steel tariffs between the US and the UK. That will make a significant difference to everybody involved in the steel industry in the UK.

Ukraine

Simon Baynes: What steps his Department is taking to support people in Wales in assisting friends and family in Ukraine.

Simon Hart: There have already been more than 10,000 Welsh registrations of interest in the UK Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. Wales is opening its arms to the people of Ukraine, proving that we are all now super-sponsors.

Simon Baynes: I am glad to have been able to help some families leaving Ukraine and I congratulate the many people and communities in Clwyd South who have been fundraising and giving practical help in the Ukraine crisis. Will the Secretary of State give further details on the Homes for Ukraine scheme, with the 10,000 registrations from Clwyd South and across Wales, and on how that is helping the situation at present?

Simon Hart: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has been campaigning on this issue; it is a great example of what Members across the House have been able to do. I repeat my earlier answer about meeting the Ukrainian ambassador last week and expressing his gratitude, as well as mine, to local authorities, charities, the public in Wales and, in particular, the Welsh Government. This has been a joint effort—a superb all-round effort, involving all the stakeholders I have mentioned and more. As I stressed earlier, this is not a competition, but a collaborative effort, in which the early uptake has been superb. I think that we will be able to offer help to the necessary number of people on the timescale that we need because of that level of co-operation. [Interruption.]

Kevin Brennan: I hope that the House will want to listen to this question. Liana, my constituent, is from Ukraine and is in Cardiff on a global talent visa. Liana’s mother-in-law is depending on the kindness of strangers in Dublin for her accommodation, but the Home Office is not letting her in from Dublin even though there is a home waiting for her in Cardiff. I notice that the Home Secretary has joined Members on the Front Bench. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Home Secretary and ask her to look into why someone who is here on a global talent visa for science cannot bring their mother-in-law to stay with them in Cardiff?

Simon Hart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I suspect that many Members have similar examples of people who, sadly, have slipped through the net or are in a difficult position. I absolutely give him an assurance, as I know the Home Secretary will, that we will look at each and every one of those individual cases and, hopefully, we will deliver to him the answer that he needs.

Offshore Wind

Selaine Saxby: What steps the Government are taking to help develop floating offshore wind projects in Wales.

David Davies: The UK Government are committed to supporting the development of the floating offshore  wind industry in Wales, with £160 million of funding available for floating offshore wind ports and factories across the UK. That funding will ensure that Wales capitalises on the huge opportunities that floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents.

Selaine Saxby: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, may I ask my hon. Friend to detail what steps are being taken to progress floating offshore wind so that the supply-chain benefits are felt all the way around the Celtic sea’s shores, from Pembrokeshire across to North Devon and Cornwall?

David Davies: I commend my hon. Friend’s commitment to championing this opportunity through her role as chair of the Celtic sea APPG. Under this Conservative Government, with this Prime Minister, we will continue to see huge increases in the renewable energy that we produce and supply-chain benefits that will be felt across the UK.

Craig Williams: I hugely welcome offshore wind on the basis that it is not onshore. Will my hon. Friend meet me to ensure that we put more of this wonderful renewable energy offshore and stop industrialising the landscape of Montgomeryshire?

David Davies: It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend. I assure him that this Conservative Government will continue to support floating offshore wind in a way that will have the support of the public.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Helen Hayes: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 March.

Boris Johnson: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Helen Hayes: The degrading strip-search of Child Q two years ago, in a school that should have been a safe place, at the hands of police officers she should have been able to trust, has caused anger and distress across the country. On Monday, the Minister for Crime and Policing failed to answer four separate questions in this Chamber about when he first knew about Child Q and what urgent action he took in response, so I ask the Prime Minister: when did he first hear about the strip-search of Child Q in her school? Does he believe that the characteristic dither and delay of his Government in responding to this appalling case is remotely acceptable when it comes to the safety of children?

Boris Johnson: I think that that is a completely ridiculous characterisation of the response of the Government, because of course the reports of the incident are deeply distressing and deeply concerning—everybody  shares the hon. Lady’s feelings about that—but the Metropolitan police have rightly apologised and the Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating. For that reason, it would not be right to comment further.

Oliver Heald: People across North East Hertfordshire are coming together to provide support and refuge to families fleeing the invasion in Ukraine. The Baldock and District action committee is about to welcome four families to our community. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows the open-hearted generosity of the British people? Will he continue to do all he can with the Minister for Refugees to make the process as simple and speedy as possible?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and all those involved in the two big schemes that we have now for welcoming people from Ukraine. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is now open; I think that about 40,000 have already applied and 150,000 families across the country have said that they want to welcome Ukrainians. That is a fantastic thing, and I thank Baldock and District for helping to lead the way.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: Eight hundred loyal British workers fired over Zoom, instantly replaced by foreign agency workers shipped in on less than the minimum wage—if the Prime Minister cannot stop that, what is the point of his Government?

Boris Johnson: We condemn the callous behaviour of P&O. I think it is no way to treat hard-working employees, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we will not sit by. It looks to me as though, under section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the company concerned has broken the law, and we will therefore be taking action, and encouraging workers themselves to take action under the Employment Rights Act 1996—and both those Acts were passed by Conservative Governments. If the company is found guilty, it will face fines running into millions of pounds. In addition, we will be taking steps to protect all mariners who are working in UK waters and ensure that they are paid the living wage.

Keir Starmer: When Owen Paterson was on the ropes, the Prime Minister was prepared to rip up the entire rule book to save his jobs. P&O workers want him to show the same fight in relation to them. The Government had advance warning of these mass sackings—a memo was sent to the Transport Secretary and to the Prime Minister’s office—but they did not lift a finger to stop them. Did the Prime Minister not understand the memo, or did he just not bother to read it?

Boris Johnson: I think what the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to rip up are his pre-scripted questions, because I just answered that question. The point at issue is whether or not the Government were properly notified. It is not about what happened previously. I knew about it on the Thursday when it became public, but the company concerned has a duty to notify the  Government 45 days before taking action of that kind, which is why we are taking the action that we are taking to protect hard-working people. What we are also doing this month, by the way, is lifting the living wage for all workers across our country by a further £1,000, so it is up by £5,000 since 2015.

Keir Starmer: I think the Prime Minister just said that he knew about it on the day. I take it from that answer that the Prime Minister did not read his WhatsApp briefing. Let us test his rhetoric. Since he came to office, P&O has received more than £38 million-worth of Government contracts, and the parent company, DP World, is lined up for £50 million of taxpayers’ money under the freeport scheme. The Government are apparently reviewing these contracts, but reviews do not save jobs. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that those companies will not get a penny more of taxpayers’ money, or a single tax break, until they reinstate the workforce?

Boris Johnson: I think what the House has already heard is that we are taking legal action—

Louise Haigh: You are not.

Boris Johnson: Yes, we are—against the company concerned, under the 1992 and 1996 Acts. That is the right thing to do, because it seems to me that that the company has broken the law. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking this Government to do what Labour usually wants us to do and actively pitchfork away investment around the country from overseas, that is not what we will do. We will take ’em to court, we will defend the rights of British workers, but what we will not do is launch a wholehearted campaign against overseas investment, as Labour would want, because that is completely wrong—and wrong for those workers.

Keir Starmer: Those at DP World must be quaking in their boots. The Prime Minister says how disappointed he is in them, while handing them £50 million.
The Prime Minister has referred to the law. Speaking of hollow reviews, as the law stands it is not illegal to pay seafarers less than the national minimum wage, even if they are working out of UK ports and in UK waters. Two years ago, the Prime Minister’s Government admitted that that was unjustifiable, and promised, two years ago—you’ve guessed it—to review it. Two years on, despite what the Prime Minister says today, nothing has been done, which has left the gate wide open for P&O. British workers do not need another empty review; they need action, so when will the Prime Minister fix that gap in the law?

Boris Johnson: With great humility, I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to listen to the answer that I gave to his first question. That would help him to scrap his third or fourth question and try another one. We are going to address the defects in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and ensure that everyone working in the UK exclusive economic zone is paid the living wage as people are in the rest of the country.

Keir Starmer: The problem is, that is what the Prime Minister said two years ago. It did not happen, and P&O took advantage of the gap left wide open by this Prime Minister. P&O’s behaviour comes off the back of  a string of fire and rehire cases, with profitable companies threatening to fire workers unless they accept a pay cut. The Prime Minister keeps telling us just how opposed he is to fire and rehire, but as we saw on Monday, he does not have the backbone to ban it. While he sits on his hands, more and more workers are having their lives turned upside down by this appalling practice. What good to them is a Prime Minister who is all mouth and no trousers?

Boris Johnson: The most notable practitioner of fire and rehire is, of course, the Labour party itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that we will be vindicating the rights of British workers—UK employees—under UK law, but I can tell him that the law that P&O itself is allegedly relying on was introduced as a result of EU directives. Never forget—[Interruption.] He may not like it, but that is the reality. He would have kept us unable to change it and unable to get out of it. He would have made it impossible for us to protect UK employees in the way that we are going to do. What we are doing above all is ensuring that workers in this country have the best protection of all, which is a job. Under this Government, thanks to the steps we have taken and thanks to the stewardship of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which you will be hearing about a little more, Mr Speaker, we have 600,000 more people in payrolled employment than before the pandemic began.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister can complain all he likes, but on Monday he ordered all of his lot to abstain on a vote to ban fire and rehire. And they all did! Then, to add insult to injury, after the vote his party posted a message saying that, where possible, they will look to find P&O workers new jobs. Pathetic! They do not want new jobs; they want their old jobs back. They do not want a Prime Minister hoisting the white flag; they want him to fight for their livelihoods. There are 82,000 seafarers in this country. I have spoken to dockers, engineers, deckhands and sailors, and they are all worried about what this means for them. This morning, one of them said to me: “If P&O can get away with this, other companies will get rid of us too and replace us with cheap labour from abroad.” Why does the Prime Minister think that they will take a crumb of comfort from his half-arsed bluster and waffle today?

Boris Johnson: P&O is plainly not going to get away with it any more than any other company that treats its employees in that scandalous way. This is a historic moment for this country, actually, because it is now two years to the day since we went into lockdown. That plunged this country into the biggest, deepest loss of output than we have seen in our lifetimes. Thanks to the Chancellor, who protected the economy, jobs and companies, we have now been able to come out faster and more effectively than any other comparable economy. We have unemployment back down to 3.9%, we have 600,000 more people on the payroll and the best assurance we can give workers around the country is that the economy is now bigger than it was before the pandemic began. We will continue to get the big calls right, as we got the big calls right during the pandemic. Labour got the big calls wrong. They would do absolutely nothing to protect workers, let alone P&O workers, because not only would they have kept us in lockdown, but they  would have kept those ships in port, unable to move. That is the reality. There has never been a Labour Government that left office with unemployment lower than when they began. That is the reality and that is their record on jobs.

Bob Blackman: I strongly support the Government’s intention to make England smoke-free by 2030, but on the current trajectory we are going to miss that target. It is vital that we discourage young people from starting to smoke and encourage people who already smoke to give up. So does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time to raise the age of legal sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21 and impose a levy on the profits of the big tobacco companies, in order to raise £700 million that we can put into smoking cessation services, on the basis that the polluter pays?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much, and he is absolutely right about smoking; it is the biggest single cause of preventable death in this country. As he will know, Javed Khan OBE is undertaking an independent review of smoking, and I am sure he will want to take my hon. Friend’s suggestions into account.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the SNP here, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: In a matter of seconds, at 12.16 pm, a Virgin Atlantic aircraft is due to depart Heathrow airport to go to Warsaw to pick up 50 young orphans who have left Ukraine and are coming to spend the next period of their life in Scotland, with the sanctuary we can offer them. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped to make sure that we can offer a new start to these young people, away from the war. I thank the Governments in London and in Edinburgh, and in particular the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and the refugee Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Harrington. This is a good day for those 50 young people, but let us hope that it is the beginning of something much more significant for many more young people we can offer sanctuary to.
This morning, we have official confirmation that inflation is at its highest level in 30 years, but families do not need official confirmation to know that the cost of food and energy is now at a price they simply cannot afford. The very people who bore the brunt of the health pandemic are now being hammered by the poverty pandemic. This is not just a cost of living crisis—this is an emergency. That is why, in Scotland, the SNP Government are doubling the Scottish child payment and raising the benefits they control by 6%—that is double the rate the Chancellor has proposed for the benefits that he has control over. So this is a very simple question for the Prime Minister: if he truly understands that this is an emergency, will he match the Scottish Government’s commitment and lift all benefits by 6%?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. We all recognise that global inflation is causing a real cost of living crisis, not just here, but around the world; in the United States, inflation is now running at more than 8%, and we are at the levels in other European countries. We are doing everything we  can to help people. The Chancellor has put another £9.1 billion into reducing the costs of energy for families. [Interruption.] I do not know quite what Members are shouting out, but we want to do more. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland is in the lead in helping this country to solve its energy problems, not just with more offshore wind, but by abandoning the phobia of our own hydrocarbons, which I think are going to be vital for transition and to avoid our being blackmailed by Putin’s Russia.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the orphans, I am grateful to him for his efforts and I thank him. If I may say, without embarrassing him further, it is another example of the burgeoning co-operation between us.

Ian Blackford: Of course, we want to make sure we open our doors in Scotland and welcome refugees, and that we have that generosity of spirit—but we will leave that there for now.
I say to the Prime Minister that inflation is at 6% and increasing. We need to make sure that those who are the most vulnerable have that increase in benefits that they need in order to pay for fuel. The Chancellor needs to ditch the official photographer and listen to Martin Lewis. Family finances are at breaking point; they cannot tighten their budgets any more. These families have no room to manoeuvre, but the truth is that the Chancellor does. Lower borrowing and increased taxes mean that he is sitting with £20 billion to spend today. But instead this Chancellor is making a political choice: the choice to push people further into hardship by hiking taxes, cutting universal credit, and giving companies free rein to slash workers’ pay through fire and rehire. So the test for the Prime Minister is this: will the Government use the full £20 billion they are sitting on to scrap the national insurance tax hike and put money into people’s pockets, or will he simply make this Tory poverty pandemic even worse?

Boris Johnson: I just advise Mystic Meg over there that he has only 10 minutes to wait before he will have the answer to that question.

Julian Sturdy: I warmly welcome the improvements to our national Ukraine refugee response, but in the weeks since these improved measures, numbers fleeing Putin’s invasion have sadly doubled to 3.5 million, and are expected to go even higher. Does the Prime Minister agree that our response must still move much faster, with a shift to processing applications in the UK and cutting the red tape and bureaucracy, so we can match the scale of Europe’s worst humanitarian crisis since the second world war?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right that we will see many more people coming here. He is right that the instincts of this country are to be as generous as possible. That is why we have made sure that applications can now be processed online very quickly, so people can come here with their passports. Under the family reunion scheme alone, I think the numbers are now running in excess of 16,000 people coming here.

Kenny MacAskill: While Ofgem can cap rising gas and electricity bills, other fuels such as heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuel remain unregulated. Many households in rural Scotland depend on such fuels. There are also areas awash with  energy, both on and offshore, yet with huge and rising numbers of people in fuel poverty. Will the Prime Minister regulate and cap such fuels, to alleviate hardship and end the perversity of energy-rich Scotland but fuel-poor Scots?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right that energy-rich Scotland and the hydrocarbons that we have in this country should be used to help the British people. We should not be needlessly reliant on oil and gas from Putin’s Russia. I think that is the policy of Alba but, unfortunately, is not yet the policy of the SNP.

Jason McCartney: I am so proud to represent a vibrant Ukrainian community in Huddersfield and Colne Valley. This Friday, at the Ukrainian club in Huddersfield, they will be collecting medical supply donations to send to Ukraine and the surrounding nations. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all our community in West Yorkshire, who have rallied round their Ukrainian neighbours and friends, and will he continue to put the UK at the forefront of donations of not only humanitarian and medical supplies, but the military aid that is allowing the Ukrainian people to fight so bravely against Putin and his cronies?

Boris Johnson: I thank the Ukrainian community in Yorkshire for everything they are doing and, of course, Ukrainian communities up and down the country and the people of this country as a whole. I am proud that we are the biggest bilateral donor, I think, other than the United States, of aid to Ukraine. I am also proud, as I know the whole House is, of the work that is being done continuously to give the Ukrainians the tools they need to defend themselves.

Graham Stringer: The Football Association is refusing to move the semi-final between Liverpool and Manchester City from Wembley. There are no trains from the north-west that day, which means 50,000 or 60,000 people will have to go by road—bad for the fans and bad for the environment. Unfortunately, this is typical of the insensitivity of the FA, who thinks that fit and proper people to run our football clubs are Russian kleptocrats and people who are wanted for human rights abuses. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to legislate to set up an independent regulator for football, with fan involvement?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I am not going to comment on the travel arrangements for the particular match—[Interruption.] The deputy Leader of the Labour party shouts for me to secure her a train. I am sure the FA will have heard the message that the hon. Gentleman has given.
What I can say is that I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has just conducted a review on the matter, that we should indeed have an independent regulator for football.

Holly Mumby-Croft: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a great champion for steel, and we have just had brilliant news on the removal of the US steel tariffs. Will he reaffirm the commitment he made at the Dispatch Box on 31 January that the Chancellor will bring forward a package of measures on our steel energy costs? If the  Chancellor is not able to make good on that commitment today, will he ensure that he does so as soon as he can?

Boris Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend passionately, and I think that it is vital that we undo the damage done by the insane policies of the previous Labour Government, which whacked up the cost of energy for British industry, including steel. I will be bringing forward a British energy security strategy that will address the needs of British steel, British ceramics and the whole of British industry.

Naseem Shah: I am sure the Prime Minister will share my delight that Bradford has been shortlisted to be the UK city of culture 2025 and will want to offer his support for our bid—it would bring immense benefits and kudos to Britain’s youngest city. With over 120 languages spoken across the city, with its unique cultural heritage and diversity and, let us not forget, the amazing food, and as the birthplace of David Hockney and the Brontës, Bradford has it all—apart from Government support. One practical way in which the Prime Minister could help is by reversing the Transport Secretary’s snub to Bradford in the integrated rail plan. So will the Prime Minister look again at this issue and commit to delivering a real northern powerhouse rail, including a stop in Bradford city?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate Bradford on being shortlisted in the way that that wonderful city has been, but I think the hon. Lady is wrong about what the integrated rail plan said, because already it commits to cutting the journey times from Leeds to Bradford from 20 minutes to 12 minutes, if I remember correctly. And we continue to look at ways of making sure that high-speed rail goes direct to Bradford.

Alun Cairns: The horrifying effects of events in Ukraine must be central to our focus, and we should do all possible to stand together in support. A war in Europe also has challenging domestic outcomes, with higher energy costs, rising food prices and effects on supplies and inflation and across the economy in general. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a time when we need to come together as a nation common and that anyone seeking to weaponise Putin’s deliberate and calculated consequences of the war will only undermine the unity of our nation at a time when Europe is in crisis?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for what he has said. One of the most important things that has confounded Vladimir Putin has not only been the heroic resistance of the Ukrainians but the unity of the rest of the world and, I must say, so far, the relative unity—the important unity—of this House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Prime Minister has been very supportive of nuclear testing veterans, so I am sure that he will be shocked that, today,  has uncovered 140 pages of data previously hidden in the footnote of a 1988 Government report. There is now concern that the High Court and this House may have been inadvertently  misinformed in 2008, when told that only 159 men in UK nuclear weapons tests were exposed to dangerous radiation, when today’s data shows exposure numbers were actually 2,314. Will the Prime Minister urgently investigate this and arrange to meet personally in Downing Street with my constituent, her grandad and other nuclear testing veterans to bring an end to this national scandal?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member very much for bringing those facts—new facts—to the attention of the House, and I know that my office has already been in touch with the group concerned to make sure that we have a proper meeting. I hope very much that she will be there, and we will be able to discuss all the issues that she has raised.

Andrew Percy: May I begin, as chair of the all-party group on surrogacy, by thanking the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular for her work in bringing Ukrainian surrogates to safety here? Sadly, in my role as chair of the all-party group against antisemitism, the news is not so positive. We have recently heard from Jewish students who are suffering record antisemitic attacks on university campuses, including allegations of their work being marked down by their own professors. This is completely outrageous, and one would expect the National Union of Students to be on their side, but instead of helping the students it has been inviting somebody who is engaged in antisemitic conspiracy theories—a rapper—to a conference. Will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to ensure that campuses are a safe place for British Jewish students?

Boris Johnson: Our universities have, for far too long, been tolerant of casual or indeed systematic antisemitism. I hope that everybody understands the need for change—for rapid and irreversible change—but it is also important that we have an antisemitism taskforce devoted to rooting out antisemitism in education at all levels.

Mary Foy: Last week, the Government did nothing to stop P&O Ferries sacking 800 seafarers on the spot. On the same day, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) was forced to come to the House to announce more than 1,100 DWP job losses and 42 centre closures, risking a further 7,000 jobs, including 1,300 in the north-east. Working people are, once again, being hammered by this Government in the middle of a cost of living crisis, causing genuine suffering. Why will the Prime Minister not act to protect local communities from losing real high-quality jobs?

Boris Johnson: I renew my sympathies with the case of the P&O workers, and I have explained to the House what we are doing, and we will do that. What we are also doing is helping the workforce up and down the country to get the coaching they need. We have doubled the number of work coaches, and what we are seeing is employment climbing and vacancies growing. We are helping this country into work, which is what Conservatives do.

Steve Brine: I have a growing number of constituents who are struggling to go about their lives or even get to work because their driving licences are stuck at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the Prime Minister make it clear at the Dispatch Box that the service from the agency falls significantly below what we expect, and will he ask the Transport Secretary to meet me, and any other Members of this House—we may need a big room—to explain how we can help the agency out of the hole in which it has put itself?

Boris Johnson: Yes. Like everybody in this House, I have read some surprising things about what has been going on at the DVLA. We need to make sure that it is given every possible encouragement and support to expedite the supply of driving licences to the people of this country.

Matt Western: It is nice to see the Prime Minister back in his place; I missed him last week.
A fantasy castle, perhaps Snow White, too, and certainly girls, girls, girls were promised at a party—less burlesque, more Berlusconi. According to a former Minister, it seems that the Prime Minister has been entertained at these bunga bunga parties, hosted by his close friend, a Russian oligarch. Given that his many weaknesses could leave him open to blackmail, why does the Prime Minister think that MI6 may not entirely trust him?

Boris Johnson: Last week, I was not here to benefit from one of the hon. Gentleman’s elaborately confected questions. I admire his style, but I am afraid that I simply fail to detect any crouton of substance in the minestrone of nonsense that he has just spoken.

Sarah Atherton: Wrexham is a town based on brewing, mining and football. It is a town evolving in aspiration, prosperity and creativity while retaining its Welsh identity. Will the Prime Minister congratulate Wrexham on being shortlisted for the city of culture, and on being the first Welsh town to be so?

Boris Johnson: Not only is Wrexham shortlisted for the city of culture, with all the distinctions my hon. Friend mentions, but it is the city of vaccines. Without the AstraZeneca vaccines bottled in Wrexham, we literally would not be where we are today.

James Murray: Former Treasury Minister Lord Agnew has described the Chancellor’s failure on covid fraud as
“one of the most colossal cock-ups in recent government management and taxpayers are paying for this”.
We now know the Chancellor’s failure has cost the country £11.8 billion—almost exactly the same as the amount that national insurance on working people will increase in the coming year. Does the Prime Minister think it is fair to demand that working people pay the bill for the Chancellor’s failures?

Boris Johnson: I remember the hon. Gentleman when he was doing planning at Islington Council, and  a complete cock-up he made of that. What I can tell him is that this Government made sure that we got the personal protective equipment and the supplies that were needed in record time. That was absolutely vital, at a time when the Opposition were calling on us to go further and faster. Never forget that under the last Labour Government, there was £23 billion lost in fraud every year.

Angela Richardson: I welcome the important interim report from Dr Hilary Cass in which she highlights the need for more research into why so many young girls are presenting with gender distress. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and other concerned colleagues to discuss how we can constructively support those young people who are experiencing gender distress?

Boris Johnson: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. This is one of those issues that the whole House is coming to realise requires extreme sensitivity, tact, love and care. We must recognise that when people want to make a transition in their lives, they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect. We have systems in this country that allow that and have done for a long time, and we should be very proud of that, but I want to say in addition that I think, when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.

Bill Esterson: The Prime Minister met the chairman of P&O owners DP World to discuss setting up a freeport in London. Just last year, the Foreign Secretary also met DP World. DP World runs ports in the UK that employ more than 600 workers. If the Prime Minister wants to remove the latest suspicion of his conflicts of interest, will he tell his Dubai millionaire friends that if they want contracts to run freeports here, they must reinstate P&O workers and guarantee the jobs of DP World workers too?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need to use more moderate and temperate language in this Chamber.

Boris Johnson: I have one overwhelming interest, which is to protect and preserve the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. That is what we are doing. That is what we will do with the P&O workers, but we will also ensure that we continue to attract overseas investment in the record ways we currently are. The Opposition would drive it away—we will not.

Shailesh Vara: This year marks the 50th anniversary of the expulsion of Asians from Uganda, the country where I was born. Under Ted Heath’s Government, people across the country opened up their homes for many of those Asians, who then settled and became part of the fabric of our great nation. That British generosity is again being seen as people open up their homes for those fleeing Ukraine and coming to our country. May I urge the Prime Minister to pick up those files from 50 years ago, wipe off the dust and take on board those positive lessons, so that we can ensure that the Homes for Ukraine scheme has maximum success?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I think the whole country can be proud of the way the UK welcomed people fleeing Idi Amin’s Uganda. Several Members of the House, including the Home Secretary herself and her family, were beneficiaries of that scheme and that moment. This country is overwhelmingly generous to people fleeing in fear of their lives and will continue to be so.

Karl Turner: Eight hundred British workers were sacked over Zoom by P&O, owned by the Government of Dubai, to be replaced with foreign exploited agency workers on less than two quid an hour. The Prime Minister can pass an instrument now to close the loophole so that the national minimum wage applies on UK international routes. Is he going to stand up for British workers or the oil state dictator Dubai?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I knew he was going to ask it and he was right to ask it. I anticipated his question  earlier on. We are going to make sure that everybody working in the UK exclusive economic zone gets paid the living wage, and we will do it as fast as we possibly can with the Opposition’s assistance.

Natalie Elphicke: I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to take legal action to hold P&O Ferries and DP World to account. I again call on them to reverse their action and reinstate the workers. Dover and Kent are already badly affected by this business, including on the roads and in the business community. Will he meet me to discuss specific support for our affected area, including the A2 upgrade for national transport links and an east Kent enterprise zone to cover and include the port of Dover?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right in what she says about P&O and about the 800 workers. I will make sure that she gets all the meetings she needs to make sure that we continue with all our fantastic investments in Dover, whether transport, education or otherwise.

Financial Statement

Rishi Sunak: As I stand here, men, women and children are huddled in basements across Ukraine seeking protection. Soldiers and citizens alike have taken up arms to defend their land and families. The sorrow we feel for their suffering, and the admiration for their bravery, is only matched by the gratitude we feel for the security in which we live—and what underpins that security is the strength of our economy. It gives us the ability to fund the armed forces we need to maintain our liberty, the resources we need to support our allies, the power to impose sanctions which cause severe economic costs, and the flexibility to support businesses and individuals through crises as they emerge. We should be in no doubt: behind Putin’s invasion is a dangerous calculation that democracies are divided, politically weak and economically insecure, and incapable of making tough long-term decisions to strengthen our economies. This calculation is mistaken. What the authoritarian mind perceives as division we know are the passionate disagreements at the heart of our living, breathing democracy. What they see as chaos we know is the freedom to be dynamic and innovative. What they call the inherent weakness of open societies and free economies we know is the source of our strength.
We will confront this challenge to our values not just in the arms and resources we send to Ukraine, but in strengthening our economy here at home. When I talk about security, yes, I mean responding to the war in Ukraine, but I also mean the security of a faster growing economy, the security of more resilient public finances, and security for working families as we help with the cost of living.
Today’s statement builds a stronger, more secure economy for the United Kingdom. We have a moral responsibility to use our economic strength to support Ukraine and work with international partners to impose severe costs on Putin’s regime. We are: supplying military aid to help Ukraine defend its borders; providing around £400 million in economic and humanitarian aid, as well as up to $0.5 billion in multilateral financial guarantees; launching the new Homes for Ukraine scheme to make sure that those forced to flee have a route to safety here in the UK; and imposing sanctions of unprecedented scale and scope. We have: sanctioned more than 1,000 individuals, entities and subsidiaries; frozen the assets of major Russian banks; imposed punitive tariffs on key products; restricted Russia’s access to sterling clearing, to insurance, to the UK’s capital markets and to SWIFT; and we have targeted the Russian central bank, too.
Be in no doubt, these sanctions, co-ordinated with our allies, are working. The Russian rouble plummeted to record lows. The Moscow stock exchange has been largely suspended for a month, and the Central Bank of Russia has been forced to more than double interest rates to 20%. We warned that an aggressive, unprovoked invasion would be met with severe economic costs, and it has. I am proud to say, as the whole House will say: we stand with Ukraine.
But the actions we have taken to sanction Putin’s regime are not cost free for us at home. The invasion of Ukraine presents a risk to our recovery, as it does to  countries around the world. We came into this crisis with our economy growing faster than expected, with the UK having the highest growth in the G7 last year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility has said specifically:
“There is unusually high uncertainty around the outlook”.
It is too early to know the full impact of the Ukraine war on the UK economy, but its initial view, combined with high global inflation and continuing supply chain pressures, means that the OBR now forecasts growth this year of 3.8%. The OBR then expects the economy to grow by 1.8% in 2023, and 2.1%, 1.8% and 1.7% in the following three years. The House will take comfort that the lower growth outlook has not affected our strong jobs performance. Unemployment is now forecast to be lower in every year of the forecast. It is already at 3.9%—back to the low levels we saw before the pandemic.
But the war’s most significant impact domestically is on the cost of living. Covid and global factors meant goods and energy prices were already high. Statistics published this morning show that inflation in February was 6.2%. That is lower than the US and broadly in line with the euro area. Disruptions to global supply chains and energy markets, combined with the economic response to Putin’s aggression, mean that the OBR expects it to rise further, averaging 7.4% this year.
As I said last month, the Government will support the British people as they deal with the rising costs of energy. People should know that we will stand by them, as we have throughout the last two years. That is why we have announced a £9 billion plan to help around 28 million households pay around half the April increase in the energy price cap. People should be reassured that the energy price cap will protect their energy bills between now and the autumn, but I want to help people now, so I am announcing three immediate measures.
First, I am going to help motorists. Today I can announce that for only the second time in 20 years, fuel duty will be cut. Not by 1p, not even by 2p, but by 5p per litre—the biggest cut to all fuel duty rates ever. While some have called for the cut to last until August, I have decided it will be in place until March next year—a full 12 months. Together with the freeze, it is a tax cut this year for hard-working families and businesses worth over £5 billion, and it will take effect from 6 pm tonight.
Secondly, as energy costs rise, we know that energy efficiency will make a big difference to bills, but if homeowners want to install energy-saving materials, at the moment only some items qualify for 5% VAT relief and there are complex rules about who is eligible. The relief used to be more generous but from 2019 the European Court of Justice required us to restrict its eligibility.
Thanks to Brexit, we are no longer constrained by EU law, so I can announce that for the next five years, homeowners having materials such as solar panels, heat pumps and insulation installed will no longer pay 5% VAT; they will pay zero. We will also reverse the EU’s decision to take wind and water turbines out of scope and zero rate them as well—and we will abolish all the red tape imposed on us by the EU. A family having a solar panel set installed will see tax savings worth £1,000 and savings on their energy bill of over £300 per year.
This policy highlights the deficiencies in the Northern Ireland protocol. We will not immediately be able to apply it to Northern Ireland, but we will be raising it  with the Commission as a matter of urgency, and I want to reassure Members from Northern Ireland that the Executive will receive a Barnett share of the value of the relief until it can be introduced UK-wide. The Prime Minister will bring forward further measures to reinforce our long-term energy security in the coming weeks.
Finally, I want to do more to help our most vulnerable households with rising costs. They need targeted support, so I am doubling the household support fund to £1 billion with £500 million of new funding. Local authorities are best placed to help those in need in their local areas, and they will receive this funding from April.
We can only afford to provide this extra support because of our stronger economy and the tough but responsible decisions we have taken to rebuild our fiscal resilience. Today’s forecasts confirm that even after the measures I am announcing today, we are meeting all our fiscal rules. Underlying debt is expected to fall steadily from 83.5% of GDP in 2022-23 to 79.8% in 2026-27. Borrowing as a percentage of GDP is 5.4% this year, 3.9% next year, and then 1.9%, 1.3%, 1.2% and 1.1% in the following years.
At a time when the OBR has said that our fiscal headroom could be
“wiped out by relatively small changes to the economic outlook,”
it is right that the central fiscal judgement I am making today is to meet our fiscal rules with a margin of safety. The OBR has not accounted for the full impacts of the war in Ukraine, and we should be prepared for the economy and public finances to worsen, potentially significantly.
The cost of borrowing is continuing to rise. In the next financial year, we are forecast to spend £83 billion on debt interest—the highest on record and almost four times the amount we spent last year. That is why we have already taken difficult decisions with the public finances, and that is why we will continue to weigh carefully calls for additional public spending. More borrowing is not cost or risk free. I said it last autumn, and I say it again today: borrowing down; debt down—only the Conservatives can be trusted with taxpayers’ money.
Our response to the immediate crisis in Ukraine has been unwavering, but we must be equally bold in response to the deeper and more fundamental challenge Putin poses to our values. We must show the world that freedom and democracy remain the best route to peace, prosperity and happiness. We will do so by strengthening our economy here at home. To that end, we are helping families with the cost of living, creating the conditions for accelerated growth and productivity, and making sure that the proceeds of growth are shared fairly. That is not the work of any one statement, but it does begin today, and with one of our most important levers: the tax system.
I told the House last autumn that my overarching ambition was to reduce taxes by the end of this Parliament, and we will do so in a way that is responsible and sustainable. Today, I am publishing a tax plan. We will take a principled approach to cutting taxes: maintaining space against our fiscal rules, as I have done today; continuing to be disciplined, with the first call on any extra resources being lower taxes, not higher spending; and, of course, carefully considering the broader macroeconomic outlook.
With those principles in mind, our new tax plan will build a stronger economy by reducing and reforming taxes over this Parliament, in three ways. First, we will help families with the cost of living; secondly, we will create the conditions for higher growth; and thirdly, we will share the proceeds of growth fairly, ensuring people are left with more of their own money. Let me take each in turn.
There is now a dedicated funding source for the country’s top priority, the NHS and social care, providing funding over the long term as demand grows, with every penny going straight to health and care. If it goes, then so does the funding, and that funding is needed now, especially as my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary’s plans to reform healthcare will ensure every pound of taxpayers’ money is well spent. When I said the Conservatives were the party of public services—the party of the NHS—I did not just mean when it was easy; it is a total commitment.
So it is right that the health and care levy stays, but a long-term funding solution for the NHS and social care is not incompatible with reducing taxes on working families. Over the last decade, it has been a Conservative mission to promote tax cuts for working people and simplify the system. That is why Conservative-led Governments raised the income tax personal allowance from £6,500 in 2010 to the new level of £12,570. But the equivalent thresholds in national insurance, which define how much people can earn NICs-free, are still around £3,000 less.
The Prime Minister pledged in the 2019 election that we would increase those thresholds. We made a big step towards that goal in my first Budget in 2020, increasing the national insurance threshold to £9,500. Today, we take the next step. Our current plan is to increase the NICs threshold this year by £300, but I am not going to do that. I am going to increase it by the full £3,000, delivering our promise to fully equalise the NICs and income tax thresholds—and not incrementally over many years, but in one go this year. From this July, people will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance.
That is a £6 billion personal tax cut for 30 million people across the United Kingdom, a tax cut for employees worth over £330 a year, the largest increase in a basic rate threshold ever, and the largest single personal tax cut in a decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it
“the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system”.
It creates what the Centre for Policy Studies has called a “universal working income”. It is a tax cut that rewards work, and around 70% of all workers will have their taxes cut by more than the amount they will pay through the new levy, once again showing that it is this Conservative Government delivering for hard-working families and helping with the cost of living.
The first part of our tax plan for a stronger economy is to support families with the cost of living, but as I set out in last month’s Mais lecture, to lift our growth and productivity, we need the private sector to train more, invest more and innovate more. People, capital, ideas: that is how we will create a new culture of enterprise—the second part of our tax plan. The plan sets out tax-cutting options on business investment and innovation, with final decisions to be announced in the autumn Budget, but these are significant and complex questions, so we  will work with businesses over the summer to get the answers right. Let me explain to the House the direction of travel.
First, on people, we lag behind international peers on adult technical skills. Just 18% of 25 to 64-year-olds hold vocational qualifications, which is a third lower than the OECD average, and UK employers spend just half the European average on training their employees. We will consider whether the current tax system, including the operation of the apprenticeship levy, is doing enough to incentivise businesses to invest in the right kinds of training.
Secondly, on ideas, over the last 50 years, innovation drove around half the UK’s productivity growth, but since the financial crisis, the rate of increase has slowed more than in other countries. Our lower rate of innovation explains almost all our productivity gap with the United States. Right now, we know that the amount that businesses spend on research and development as a percentage of GDP is less than half the OECD average, and that is despite us spending more on tax reliefs than almost every other country. Something is not working, so we will reform R&D tax credits so that they are effective and better value for money; we will expand the generosity of the reliefs so that they include data, cloud computing and pure maths; and we will consider, in the autumn, whether to make the R&D expenditure credit more generous.
Thirdly, on capital, weak private sector investment is a long-standing cause of our productivity gap internationally: capital investment by UK businesses is considerably lower than the OECD average of 14%, and it accounts for fully half our productivity gap with France and Germany. Once the super deduction ends next year, our overall tax treatment for capital investment will be far less generous than that of other advanced economies. We are going to fix that. In the autumn Budget, we will cut the tax rates on business investment, and I look forward to discussing the best ways to do that with businesses. People, capital, ideas—three priorities for business tax cuts this autumn.
But I want to help smaller businesses right now, so let me remind the House of our plan. Our business rates discount will take effect in April for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. They will get a 50% discount on their business rates bill, up to £110,000. A typical pub will save £5,000. That is a tax cut for hundreds of thousands of small businesses, worth £1.7 billion, taking effect in just a week’s time. Our Help to Grow Management scheme offers businesses mini-MBAs, 90% funded by Government—a benefit worth several thousand pounds—and Help to Grow Digital gives businesses a 50% discount on buying new software, up to £5,000. We have also increased the annual investment allowance to £1 million, so that small and medium-sized businesses will feel the benefit of full expensing.
I want to respond to the specific calls from small businesses with one further announcement today. The employment allowance cuts small businesses’ tax bills, making it cheaper to employ workers. In my first Budget two years ago, I increased that allowance. Today, I am going further. From April, the employment allowance will increase to £5,000. That is a new tax cut worth up to £1,000 for half a million small businesses, starting in just two weeks’ time. Future tax cuts on business investment  and innovation; a business rates discount worth £1.7 billion; Help to Grow schemes worth thousands of pounds per business; an annual investment allowance worth up to £1 million; and a new tax cut on the costs of employment, worth £1,000 per company—once again, it is this Conservative Government delivering for British business.
The tax plan I have announced today will help people and businesses to deal with rising costs, and will help raise the future growth rate of this country, but we want the proceeds of growth shared fairly—the third objective of our tax plan. The knowledge that people can keep more of what they earn is a powerful incentive for people to work hard. It means greater economic security, and we know that individuals spend their money better than Governments do. We have already announced today the equalisation of personal tax thresholds, giving over 30 million workers a tax cut worth over £330, and over time I want to go further; but tax cuts must be paid for, must be prioritised, and must fit the economic circumstances of the time. A clear goal for Conservative Chancellors, and even some Labour ones, has been to cut income tax. The fact that this has happened only twice in 20 years tells us how hard it is to do. Covid and the war in Ukraine have only added to the difficulty of achieving this by the end of this Parliament. I am sure that all Members of the House recognise and understand those challenges. It would clearly be irresponsible to meet that ambition this year, yet I refuse to let it wither and drift.
By 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility currently expects inflation to be back under control, debt to be falling sustainably, and the economy to be growing. Our fiscal rules are met with a clear margin of safety, so my final announcement today is this: I can confirm that before the end of this Parliament, in 2024, for the first time in 16 years, the basic rate of income tax will be cut from 20p to 19p in the pound—a tax cut for workers, for pensioners, and for savers, and a £5 billion tax cut for 30 million people. Let me be clear with the House: it is fully costed and fully paid for in the plans announced today. Last year, I told the House that I would cut taxes for hard-working families, but I would do so in a responsible and sustainable way, and today I am delivering on that promise.
Cutting taxes is not easy. it requires hard work, prioritisation, and willingness to make difficult and often unpopular arguments elsewhere. It is only because this Government have been prepared to make difficult but responsible choices in order to fix our public finances that I can stand here and tell this House not only that taxes are being cut, but that debt is also falling while public spending is increasing. That does not happen by accident. We can deliver for the British people today and into the future because, unlike the Labour party, we have a plan—a plan that reforms and improves public services, a plan to grow our economy, a plan to level up across the United Kingdom, a plan that helps families with the cost of living and, yes, a tax plan that cuts taxes for working families by over £330. It cuts taxes on fuel by 5p per litre. It cuts taxes on business and, yes, for the for the first time in a long time, it cuts income tax. Let me end by simply saying this: my tax plan delivers the biggest net cut to personal taxes in over a quarter of a century, and I commend it to the House.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The House heard the Chancellor, quite rightly, and I want the same respect shown to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.

Rachel Reeves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today was the day that the Chancellor could have put a windfall tax on oil and gas producers to provide real help for families, but he did not. Today was the day he could have set out a proper plan to support businesses and create good jobs, but he did not. Today was the day that he could properly have scrapped his national insurance hike, but he did not. Labour said it was the wrong tax at the wrong time, and the wrong choice; and today the Chancellor has finally admitted that he got that one wrong. Inflation is at its highest level for 30 years, and rising. Energy prices are at record highs, and people are worried sick. For all his words, it is clear that the Chancellor does not understand the scale of the challenge. He talks about providing security for working families, but his choices are making the cost of living crisis worse, not better.
The situation following Putin’s criminal assault on Ukraine remains gravely serious. Just one month after the invasion, so much has changed, and there will be repercussions for years to come. The Chancellor has today failed to explain why he chose to sign off on a reduction in our country’s armed forces last October. Will he confirm whether the Government’s target Army size is still being reduced by 10,000 troops? I say this to the Chancellor: Labour will support whatever is needed on defence and security, in order to keep our country safe.
The tremors following Putin’s aggression will impact Britain, including economically, but the cost of living crisis predates Putin’s attack on Ukraine. In October, inflation was already forecast to be double the Bank of England’s target, yet the Prime Minister said that fears of inflation were unfounded. Today we learn that inflation has reached 6.2%, and it is expected to go higher in the coming months. People are rightly looking to their Government to help them weather this storm. Labour will support sensible measures to ease the pressure, but what the Chancellor has announced today says everything we need to know about his priorities.
The cost of living crisis is hitting people particularly hard because incomes have been squeezed during the past 12 years of Conservative Governments. Ordinary families, disabled people, and pensioners are facing difficult choices. Mums are skipping meals so that their children do not. Families are struggling to buy new school shoes and uniforms for their children. Older people are hesitating to put the heating on, because they are worried about the cost.
At the weekend, the Chancellor was asked about fuel poverty, and he did not even know the numbers. That is shameful, because when Martin Lewis predicts that 10 million people could be pushed into fuel poverty, the Chancellor should sit up and listen. We know that pensions and social security will not keep up with inflation, and pensioners and those on social security will be getting a real-terms cut to their income. What analysis has the Chancellor done on the impact of benefits being uprated by less than inflation? How many more children and pensioners will drift into poverty because of the choices of this Government?
Who does the Chancellor prioritise? He continues to defend the record profits of oil and gas producers, who themselves admit that they have more money than they know what to do with. BP describes this crisis as a “cash machine” for it, but it is British people who are paying out. It is deeply regrettable that the SNP has joined the Tories in wanting to shield oil and gas producers from Labour’s progressive measures. When I set out Labour’s plans for a windfall tax in January, we estimated that it would have raised £1.2 billion. Because of the continued rise in global oil and gas prices, it would today raise more than £3 billion. That money could be used to help families, pensioners and businesses, with a cut to VAT being a real Brexit dividend that would help working families and pensioners across our country. A targeted warm home discount would see families and pensioners on the lowest and modest incomes supported by £600.
Today the Chancellor comes along, after 12 years of failure on energy efficiency, and announces a VAT cut on building materials. That is wholly inadequate. A proper energy efficient scheme, such as that set out by Labour, could cut bills by £400 for people from next year. The silence from the Chancellor about our energy intensive manufacturing industries is appalling. At this time of national crisis, people and businesses need a Government who are on their side.
The Chancellor spoke of difficult choices, and I agree. There are always choices to be made, such as who to tax and who to shield. Despite his reluctant measures, he is still taking money out of people’s purses and wallets with an increase in national insurance contributions. The changes he is making today prompt a question about why he embarked on them in the first place, despite warnings from the Labour party and from many, many others. It is one thing for the Prime Minister and Chancellor to disagree with each other, but the centrepiece of the Chancellor’s statement today is based on a disagreement with himself. For all his tax rises for millions in the middle, where is the increased tax contribution from the wealthiest in society? A landlord with a large number of properties will not pay a penny more in taxes, but their tenants will. Someone with significant income from buying and selling stocks and shares will not be paying any more in tax, but those people powering our economy will be. The Chancellor has made the wrong choices.
The Chancellor says that we cannot help everyone, which is absolutely true. But who has he been helping out? Those who have been swindling the taxpayer. The Chancellor left open the vaults for widespread waste, crony contracts, and a frenzy of fraud. It was, as his former Tory Treasury Minister put it,
“happy days if you were a crook.”
Seven billion items of personal protective equipment—not usable—are now being burned. Taxpayers’ money is literally going up in smoke, and £3.5 billion worth of contracts were awarded to friends, donors and pub landlords. And it gets worse. The Chancellor has been signing cheques to fraudsters, including organised criminals and drug dealers. Let us put the Chancellor’s fraud failure in context. He has lost a staggering £11.8 billion of public money to fraud. That is twice the amount that a previous Conservative Government lost on Black Wednesday. As a result of—let us face it—that jaw-dropping incompetence, the Conservatives have been funding crime instead of fighting it. Now the Chancellor has the  audacity to come to British taxpayers to ask them to pay more to fill his black hole. There can be no cover-up to hide political embarrassments, so let us call in the National Crime Agency to investigate. We need answers and people to be held to account, because—let us be clear—taxpayers want their money back.
The truth is that people can no longer afford the Conservatives. Working families cannot, pensioners cannot and businesses cannot. The weak growth forecasts we have seen today should be flashing red on the Chancellor’s desk. The Chancellor said, in his statement, that the work starts today. Is he serious? The Conservatives have been in government for 12 years, not 12 hours. What has taken them so long? Since his party entered government, the UK has experienced the biggest downgrade in growth of any major economy. Under the last Labour Government, economic growth was 2.1% a year. In the last 12 years under the Conservatives, it has averaged 1.5%. Now we know that growth has been downgraded this year too. Growth is essential for funding our public services, keeping taxes under control and keeping a handle on public finances too. That is why Labour has announced a tough set of fiscal rules to get our debt and our deficit down. The truth is that, because of the Government’s failure to get the economy growing, the Chancellor has had to put up taxes on families and businesses a staggering 15 times.
The Chancellor has raised taxes more in the last two years than any previous Chancellor in the last 50. He says it is all down to the pandemic, but the truth is that the Conservatives have become the party of high taxation because they are the party of low growth. I understand that the Chancellor has a portrait of Nigel Lawson above his desk. Well, today we have an energy price crisis, record prices at the pumps and inflation is back. The truth is that he is not Nigel Lawson: he is Ted Heath with an Instagram account.
Labour would get the economy firing on all cylinders, ensuring that we buy, make and sell more in Britain, scrapping business rates and replacing them with a fairer system fit for the 21st century, something that small and high street businesses are crying out for, and the Chancellor mentioned not at all in his statement today. Labour would make a climate investment pledge to decarbonise the economy, create good jobs in every part of Britain and strengthen our energy security too. Businesses are seeing unprecedented increases in their costs right now, but all we hear from the Chancellor today is the promise of jam tomorrow, not the support that is needed now. Today’s statement lacks the long-term plan for productivity, skills and growth. Where is it?
I cannot help but feel that in both the Chancellor’s recent Mais lecture and his statement today we are presented with increasingly incredible claims. Perhaps the Chancellor has been taking inspiration from the characters in Alice in Wonderland or should I say, Alice in Sunakland? Because nothing there is quite as it seems. It is the sort of place where a Chancellor celebrates giving people £200 to help them with their spiralling energy bills, before explaining that he needs it all back. In Sunakland, the Chancellor proclaims, “I believe in lower taxes”, at the same time as hiking Alice’s national insurance contributions. So Alice asks the Chancellor,  “When did lower taxes mean higher taxes? Has down become the new up?” The Chancellor follows Humpty Dumpty’s advice and says,
“When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Alice knows that under the Conservatives taxes are at their highest level in decades, as a result of the policies of this very same Chancellor. In fact, he was the only G7 finance Minister to raise taxes on working people during this crucial year of recovery. Curiouser and curiouser. As Alice climbs out of the rabbit hole to leave Sunakland, she recalls the words of the White Rabbit and concludes that perhaps the Chancellor’s reality is just different from hers.
The actual reality is that the Chancellor’s failure to back a windfall tax, and his stubborn desire to pursue a national insurance tax rise, are the wrong choices. In eight days’ time, people’s energy bills will rise by 54%. Two weeks today, the Chancellor’s latest tax hike will start hitting working people and their employers. His national insurance tax rise was a bad idea last September, and he has admitted that it is an even worse one today. The Chancellor is making an historic mistake. Today was the day to scrap the tax rise on jobs. Today was the day to bring forward a windfall tax. Today was the day for the Chancellor to set out a plan to support British businesses. But on the basis of the statement today and the misguided choices of the Chancellor, families and businesses will endure significant hardship. The Chancellor has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge that we face and, yet again, he is making the wrong choices for our country.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her reply. She raised several points that I will come to in due course, but listening to her speech it sounded as though covid, and the huge damage it did to our economy and public finances, had never actually happened. It sounded as though we did not have to introduce furlough, support businesses and provide emergency funding to schools, councils and, yes, the NHS. While her party supported all those policies at the time, it now seems unwilling to pay for them. There is a pattern there. Labour is always happy to spend taxpayers’ money, but not to take care of it.
On some of the hon. Lady’s specific points, it was telling that she opened her statement by yet again calling for a windfall tax. On this side of the House, we want to encourage more investment in the North sea, and we want more domestic energy and more jobs for the UK. A windfall tax would put that off, which is why the Prime Minister will bring forward a comprehensive energy security strategy in the coming weeks to address that.
The hon. Lady talked about business rates and supporting businesses. In just a week’s time, small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector will get a 50% discount on their business rates bill. It is the biggest cut to business rates outside of coronavirus since the business rate system was created—£1.7 billion. I know that she has said that she would like to abolish business rates. She also says she has some fiscal rules, but I have not quite figured out how she will pay for the £25 billion of tax cuts that that would involve—I look forward to hearing it. She talked about defence spending. It is all very well to talk about the size of the Army. At least Labour now seems to think that we should actually  have an Army, which is a welcome conversion. It is because of how seriously we take the nation’s security that in 2020, when we had decided to do short-term spending settlements for most Departments, we singled out one Department for special treatment and gave it a four-year settlement in advance of everyone else—that was the Ministry of Defence. In that settlement it received £24 billion of new cash, the largest uplift to defence spending since the end of the cold war, ensuring that we are not just the second-largest spender in Europe in NATO but the fifth largest in the world, a record of which we on the Conservative Benches are very proud.
The hon. Lady talked about pensions. Again, thanks to the actions of Conservative-led Governments since 2010, we put in place the triple lock—not something the Labour party ever did when it was in power. It means that pensions are now £2,300 higher than they were in 2010 and £700 more than if the triple lock had not been in existence during that time. I am pleased to say that the state pension, relative to earnings, is now at its highest level in over 30 years. This party will always be on the side of pensioners.
Turning briefly to the hon. Lady’s comments on tax—fair enough, it is a short time in which to have to respond, but I am not sure if she fully understood the implications of the tax cut announced today. The increase in the national insurance thresholds to equalise them fully is a £6 billion tax cut for 30 million UK workers. It is the largest increase in thresholds ever, the biggest personal tax cut in a decade, and it is worth £330 for those workers. I do not know whether she realised this, because she talked about the levy and making sure that we direct our policy at those who need our help, but there is a reason the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies called this increase the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system: 70% of workers will pay less tax, even accounting for the levy. It is more generous than the policy she is advocating. Combined with the other tax cuts we have announced today, this plan represents the biggest net cut to personal taxes in a quarter of a century.
Let me conclude by saying this. The plan we have announced today has only been possible because we have taken tough decisions with the public finances. They have not always necessarily been popular, but they always been responsible and always honest. It is two years to the day that the country first entered lockdown and suffered the biggest economic shock in over 300 years. An unprecedented collective national effort was undertaken and two years later this Government have not only fixed the public finances but people are back in jobs, debt is falling and taxes are now being cut. No Government can get every call right. We learn from our mistakes and we strive to improve. But even if they will not admit it, Labour Members will recognise this day as an achievement that we all can celebrate. I have said it before to the Labour party and I will say it again: there is a fine line between reasonable criticism and political opportunism, and in my experience the British people can always tell the difference.

Peter Bottomley: I think the shadow Chancellor’s remarks will be best remembered for pointing out that the Conservatives won the 2010 election and the 2019 election. It is probably a very good thing for the country that we did.
The Chancellor has met the major obligations on public spending which helps the economy to grow and which allows for more jobs and more Government revenue. As he pointed out just now, the changes to national insurance do the things that Martin Lewis, as well as the institutes, would applaud. Those three sources of support—he has my support, too—are very welcome.
May I ask the Chancellor to remember that pensioners do not just have the state pension? Many have fixed pensions on top and getting inflation down as fast as possible is vital to them. They cannot go for a bigger pay increase if they are not at work.
Finally, some areas of public spending do not make it easy to have efficiencies. If teachers’ salaries make up most of the cost of education, it is very important to ensure that we do not squeeze education and wreck our schools and our pupils’ future.
On cladding, when amendments to the Building Safety Bill come from the other place, can my right hon. Friend please not keep his purse completely shut? If money needs to be advanced so that homes can be safe and saleable, will he please consider that openly?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and he is right to highlight some of the independent commentators who have supported the policies announced today. I will touch on one of the things he said, which was about education spending. I agree that it is vital for our country’s future that we support our teachers and children. That is why the Prime Minister announced, in total, £5 billion of catch-up funding to help children to recover the learning they lost during the pandemic, why we are raising per pupil cash amounts by £1,500 over the Parliament, and why we are raising teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000, as our manifesto committed to doing.

Alison Thewliss: This tax plan that the Chancellor has announced is very thin. It is lightweight and it is superficial. It is exactly what we have come to expect from this Chancellor. What we heard today from the Chancellor was not enough. It was utterly detached from the needs of our constituents up and down these islands.
This cost of living crisis has been a decade in the making, layer upon layer: austerity, which stripped back public services and punished people through brutal social security cuts; Brexit, which has driven away skilled workers and increased costs for businesses and individuals; covid, where we saw public money splurged in its billions on crony contracts while some people were entirely excluded from support, and now those who got support under the self-employment income support scheme are expected to pay tax on it, just to add insult to injury; and now home energy costs, which were already soaring before the increase in hostilities in Ukraine, are forcing households to the brink. Inflation running at 6.2%, its highest rate in 30 years, is hitting the poorest the hardest. Food prices are rising, especially for the basics, and foodbanks are seeing record numbers of people coming through their doors. The Chancellor says he is going to increase the household support fund, but is that it? Is that it? People are desperate and they need a good deal more help than that.
We know that sanctioning Russia is not cost-free, but the Tories cannot use that as a sleight of hand to distract from the layers of pain that lie beneath the  current crisis. Each of those layers has seen political choices and opportunities for change squandered by this UK Tory Government and their predecessors. We see it again today. This Chancellor has increased taxes more in two years than Gordon Brown did in 10, while people are struggling. The Treasury Committee issued a report this morning, which states that the UK Government
“must take further action to support UK households, in particular those on lower incomes to manage the subsequent rise in energy and other costs.”
The Chancellor’s announcement on national insurance contributions is welcome. We have been calling for it for years. It is not something that the Chancellor should have brought today; it is something he should have brought to the House a long time ago. Hiking national insurance is a tax on individuals, but it is also a tax on jobs. Employers are already facing increased costs in energy and materials, and many businesses will not be able to bear such pressure. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular need more support. Hospitality and tourism have struggled through the pandemic and now the Chancellor is moving VAT from 12.5% back to 20% at a time when consumers have much less money in their pockets. We on the SNP Benches called for the cut before the Chancellor brought it in, and we support UKHospitality’s “VAT’s enough” campaign.
Universal credit has been cut by £20 a week at a time when people need it the most. Carly, a single mum, spoke at the Gingerbread reception on Monday and told us all how important it was that that money was there, because things are tighter than they have ever been. There is no further support for people on legacy benefits and disabled people who often face higher energy costs and have no option on those costs. A taper has been put in place that helps only people who are in work. Benefits are just not going far enough, as they do not keep pace with inflation, and the welfare cap punishes people for their circumstances. There has been an end to the triple lock on pensions and there is nothing for the WASPI women, who are campaigning outside today, who are still losing out on what should have rightfully been theirs.
The Scottish Government, by contrast, are doing what they can within their limited budget, to support people: uprating the eight Scottish social security benefits we control by 6% and increasing the Scottish child payment to £20 a week—a lifeline to families. This UK Government should be doing the same. Taking 5p off fuel is something, but it does not help those who are paying for trains and buses. The Chancellor cut air passenger duty during COP26 but he still offers nothing for the millions of commuters who use public transport every day.
I do not know if the Chancellor has ever had a prepayment meter—I do not think they fit them for swimming pools. However, 4.5 million people—[Interruption.] Hon. Members say it is “pathetic”, but 4.5 million people across these islands experience the stress and despair of watching the money on their prepayment meters run out. Prepayment customers already pay higher bills than those on direct debit and they may struggle even to access the Chancellor’s “heat now, pay later” loan—if it does not automatically go to pay back the debts on that meter. The Fuel Bank Foundation,  which provides top-ups to those on prepayment meters who are struggling, has seen a 75% increase in demand already. That was before the prices that we are seeing now.
There was nothing either from the Chancellor for customers using heating oil or LPG, who must fill up by the tank. Those on heating oil have seen their tank costs—for 500 litres in a tank—go from £250 to between £600 and £900. They have no choice about how to get that energy. Where are they in the Chancellor’s priorities today?
Nuclear energy—which the Government touted an awful lot before today and which, interestingly, was missing from the Chancellor’s statement—is not the answer to reducing people’s bills. It is slow and eye-wateringly expensive. We know from the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill that the Government’s proposals will add £63 billion to people’s energy bills. They should instead fix the long-standing inequality of grid charging, invest more in onshore and offshore wind, tidal and solar, and bring carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland off their reserve bench. They should make it a real net zero transition worthy of the name.
The Government could invest in a national programme of heat pumps, retrofitting and insulating. I was glad to see the Chancellor’s announcement on home energy efficiency and repairs, because we have called for that for a long time. However, this paltry announcement does not go nearly far enough and does not even meet the significant home energy interventions that Scotland is making.
The Chancellor has choices. He could have looked at a windfall tax on profits. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), was right about oil and gas, but why should Amazon, Serco and Netflix not have to pay up for their mega-profits during the pandemic?
The Chancellor has had a windfall of his own. Tax revenues are higher than expected and the deficit is £30 billion lower than planned. If we look at the OBR report that came out today, we see that VAT has gone up by £21.7 billion—that is £21.7 billion extra in the Chancellor’s coffers—and that the amount from self-assessment is up by £5.2 billion more than was forecast late last year. That could have been used to cushion the cost of living crisis and to invest in renewables and wean us off fossil fuel.
MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis was stark in his warning on Sunday morning:
“As the ‘Money Saving Expert’ who has been known for this, I am virtually out of tools to help people now.”
He said, while watching this statement, that his “head …sunk”. There is no help for people on energy.
In conclusion, people face a crisis that the Chancellor could have done more to avert. In so many ways, he has made the choice not to act. There is nothing for Scotland in his announcement today. We on the Scottish National party Benches look forward to the day when Scotland has a Government with the full fiscal powers to make sure that all our people can have a decent standard of living, and that no child goes to bed with an empty tummy in a cold home.

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady said that there is nothing for Scotland in this statement, but maybe she missed the part about the UK-wide fuel duty cut, which, together  with the freeze, will save a typical driver £100 and a typical van driver £200 this year. Perhaps she missed the part about the largest increase to personal tax thresholds ever. That £6 billion tax cut will help 2.4 million people in Scotland, starting in just a few months’ time. Indeed, 75,000 businesses will benefit from the employment allowance—again, that £1,000 tax cut for Scottish businesses will come in very shortly.
The hon. Lady mentioned that Scotland, as ever, wants more fiscal autonomy. Scotland already has a considerable degree of fiscal autonomy, and I did not hear whether the SNP will deliver the same income tax cut for Scottish taxpayers that the UK Government will deliver—as paid for in these numbers—in 2024. I look forward to hearing from her that the Scottish Government will cut taxes for their taxpayers with the powers and funding that they will get.
I always want to make sure that we look after the most vulnerable in our society. The hon. Lady mentioned a single mother she knew. I am pleased with and proud, in fact, of this Government’s actions, because by increasing the national living wage in April by 6.6%, by cutting the UC taper rate and through the increase in personal thresholds today, we have ensured—if we take all tax and welfare changes together—that a single mother of two children working full time on the national living wage will now be £1,600 better off.
The hon. Lady made a point about businesses. We are providing a business rate discount for business, and Scotland has received a Barnett share of that money. A business rate discount will come in here for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in just a few weeks, and I know that the Scottish Government will have the resources to do the same thing.
Lastly, the hon. Lady made a comment about prepayment meters. I am acutely aware that millions of families rely on prepayment meters. That is why, when we designed the energy support package that we announced in February, we had particular care for those people to ensure that they would receive the same benefit. Indeed, we made sure that 40% of them will automatically get the £200 rebate in October. For the remainder, we are working with BEIS and the industry to ensure that all those people get the same benefit as well. They will receive a voucher, a cheque in the post or something called a “special access message” on their phone, by SMS, so that when they go to one of the retailers that they use to top up their meter, they will also benefit from our actions, because this Conservative Government is on the side of everyone.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

Mel Stride: I broadly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Of course, the devil will always be in the detail and we look forward to seeing him at the Treasury Committee next week, along with the OBR and various economists, including from the IFS, which he mentioned.
I welcome the cut to fuel duty. That will help motorists and consumers and be important for businesses. The VAT reduction relating to energy efficiency and solar is very important in the context of the sanctions on Russia and energy self-sufficiency, where we can achieve it. The hardship fund will be a very targeted measure, which is important, and small businesses will be delighted to  have heard about the increase in the employment allowance to £5,000, which was a key ask of the Federation of Small Businesses.
Along with many others in the House, I would have liked the NI increases for next year to have been scrapped in their entirety. However, the threshold increase that my right hon. Friend announced today has been very significant—far more significant than I imagined it would be.
This is the big question that my right hon. Friend will be asked: in the context of the fiscal targets, which I think we all agree that we need to meet, has he used enough of the headroom now as opposed to having that as a hedge against future uncertainties, to which he alluded and which are very real, in terms of inflation, interest rates and the effect on the cost of Government borrowing? Will he say a bit more about the fiscal headroom—he will have had the advantage of seeing the OBR figures, which I have not—and his assessment of that, particularly around the deficit target?
On growth, my right hon. Friend pointed out the OBR downgrades, which are not surprising in a high inflationary environment, and the dampening effect that they will have on consumer demand. I was very pleased that he referred to his Mais lecture, because it will be essential for us to focus on innovation, people and driving up capital investment.
My right hon. Friend referred, I think, to a consultation on how to improve capital investment, on which we lag behind our G7 competitors. Will he tell us more about the timeline for that consultation and when he expects to be able to provide important certainty for businesses in that respect?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his words of support. Let me briefly address his two substantive questions.
The tax plan published in the spring statement document today has a range of options for cutting taxes on investment. I look forward to having a conversation with my right hon. Friend, with colleagues and with the business community about the right way to achieve the outcomes that we want. The final decisions will be announced in the autumn Budget and will take effect in spring 2023 after the super deduction ends; I will not get into the detail now.
We have about 1% of GDP as headroom against both the stock and the flow rules on debt falling and on borrowing. On the borrowing side, that is approximately in line with previous Chancellors. On the stock rule, it is a bit less: the average over the past decade has been about 1.7%. The headroom includes the tax cut in 2024, which has been fully paid for and costed in these numbers. I believe that we are taking a responsible and pragmatic approach, but my right hon. Friend is right to point out the risks. The OBR has said that relatively small changes in the macroeconomic outlook could wipe out the entire headroom. That is why it is right that we continue to be disciplined on public spending.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I would like to try to get everybody in. That will mean Members not making short statements, but asking just one question so that the Chancellor can give one answer.

Meg Hillier: At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister batted away a question about fraud during covid by suggesting that it was just about delivery, but it was the Chancellor who gave the ministerial direction for the bounce back loans to be paid at such speed. With a check that was even 48 hours longer, the Government might have avoided the fraudulent duplicate claims that were not stopped until a month later. The £4.7 billion that was lost to fraud could have mitigated measures such as the national insurance increase. Does the Chancellor now regret that he did not pause for thought and that he was not more cautious about fraud?

Rishi Sunak: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but on this matter I believe she is wrong. She has incredible hindsight to point out now issues that neither she nor anybody else raised at the time. Quite the opposite, in fact: I was told daily in this Chamber to get money out not in weeks and months, but in hours and days. Putting longer fraud checks in place would have taken weeks, so I stand by the decision that we made.
We have put various safeguards in place. We have blocked £2 billion of bounce back loans—60,000 because of the checks at Companies House. The National Investigation Service and the National Crime Agency are in the process of successfully prosecuting dozens of people. We are striking people off from Companies House and we are investing more today in the NCA, NATIS and the British Business Bank so that they can work on the interventions that we know are doing very well. I think it is wrong for hon. Members to pretend now that they wanted to do something at the time, when they did not.

Greg Clark: I congratulate the Chancellor on a tax-cutting, deficit-cutting, tax-simplifying statement that is very much in the tradition of Nigel Lawson. He mentioned research and development tax credits. Are we on track for our target for investment in R&D across the economy to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027? When will the changes to R&D tax credits come into effect so that further progress can be made?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support; I know that this is an area of particular interest and concern for him. The 2.4% comprises two things: what the Government spend and what private businesses spend. I can reassure him that we are more than on track for the Government bit of it: we already spend the OECD average on the 2.4%, and that spending will go up by 50% over this Parliament, so the Government are doing our bit. As I said in my statement and in the Mais lecture, the private sector lags significantly internationally in how much it spends.
The changes that we are making to R&D will all come into effect in the spring next year and will be announced finally in the autumn Budget. My right hon. Friend wrote the foreword to a very helpful report on this topic. I look forward to working with him, with his Committee—the Select Committee on Science and Technology—and with others so that we get these changes right and drive up private sector investment in R&D.

Clive Betts: May I draw attention to two stories in the Sheffield Star today? Sheffield is still a city of steel. Ben McIvor, president of Forged Solutions Group, which employs  400 skilled workers in the steel industry, is begging for help with the rise in energy costs, because the company simply cannot pass on those costs to its customers. Workers at Liberty Steel are protesting about the Prime Minister’s broken promise that if we left the EU, he would cut energy bills for steel companies. Why has the Chancellor chosen to break the Prime Minister’s promise?

Rishi Sunak: No, we have provided over £2 billion-worth of support for energy-intensive industries over the past several years—including, I believe, over £600 million for the steel industry. That support comes in a variety of ways, including free allowances and compensation for the emissions trading scheme and other carbon price mechanisms. We also announced hundreds of millions of pounds in the spending review to support the industry to make the transition to using cleaner energy.

Theresa Villiers: In the spending review, the Chancellor gave a lifeline to maintained nursery schools by confirming supplementary funding, but not all schools qualify for that funding. May I appeal to him to work with the Secretary of State for Education to identify the modest additional funding needed to put all maintained nursery schools on a stable financial footing for the future?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend has championed the issue consistently since I have had this job, and she deserves enormous credit. I would be very happy to talk to her and to take her proposals up with the Department for Education.

Sammy Wilson: It would be churlish not to accept that the Chancellor has sought to deal with many of the issues that working families today face, but given the windfall in taxes that he has experienced, I believe that more could have been done to help with fuel costs, energy bills and other cost of living increases. It is significant that the Chancellor could not apply all his tax cuts to Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland protocol: that shows that the protocol needs to be dealt with.
At the start of his statement. the Chancellor referred to Ukraine, but surprisingly there was no mention of additional resources for defence—for the defence of this country, the defence of democracy and the defence of values in the face of Putin’s aggression. Why was that absent today?

Rishi Sunak: On fiscal windfalls and headroom, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to the Chair of the Treasury Committee. Our headrooms are relatively small by historical standards and could be wiped out very easily by small changes in the macroeconomic outlook, so I think that it is wrong to say that there is a huge windfall. Indeed, borrowing for the forthcoming year will be higher than was forecast in October.
On defence, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to the shadow Chancellor. We increased the defence budget by £24 billion in 2020—the largest increase since the cold war. The Ministry of Defence was the only Department that got a four-year settlement when all the others got just one year. That is how seriously we take the issue.

Huw Merriman: I congratulate the Chancellor on the statement and particularly on the 5p reduction in fuel duty, which I note is temporary. Will he remind all Members of this House that temporary does not mean permanent, and that as the reduction costs £5 billion, if it becomes permanent we will not be able to reduce income tax, which also costs £5 billion, if we are to meet our tests of fiscal responsibility?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend, as ever, for his support. He is right: the fuel duty cut will benefit all our constituents, particularly those in more rural areas and on lower incomes. He is also right to make the point that we need to remain disciplined on public spending. We have fully accounted for the income tax cut in our plans, but it will require collective discipline to deliver those tax cuts and others that we want to see over the remainder of this Parliament.

Alison McGovern: The Government have been warned privately and publicly not to make up employment statistics, so alarm bells rang when the Chancellor of the Exchequer glossed over the employment numbers in his statement just now. The small print reveals that unemployment is forecast to rise next year and then plateau, so may I ask him what the Department for Work and Pensions is playing at?

Rishi Sunak: Unemployment is at an almost record low level of 3.9% at the moment. The OBR’s forecasts overall are lower than its October forecasts and are still at very low levels of 4.2%-ish throughout the forecast period. We are very proud of this Government’s track record on jobs, with record numbers of people on payroll. Despite the forecasts of millions of people unemployed, we have managed to successfully get everyone back to work, with a record number of job vacancies, and we will continue to focus on that.

Edward Leigh: With the world economy facing unparalleled challenges from at least two of the four horsemen of the apocalypse—death from plague and war—and with all the challenges that the Chancellor faces, I wonder whether anybody seriously believes, after a decade of unfunded spending promises, that tax would be any lower under a Labour Government. That is a question that I think the Labour party should answer.
May I ask a question on behalf of people of pensionable age? More and more of them are having to wait a long time—up to two years—for so-called minor operations, which can be very debilitating and very painful. More and more people on middle incomes are dipping into their savings or going into debt to pay for private operations. Will the Chancellor keep an open mind about helping those people with some sort of tax relief—if not on insurance, on the cost of operations that are delayed for up to two years?

Rishi Sunak: I am always happy to take suggestions from my right hon. Friend. He has identified a pressing problem faced by all our constituents who are waiting longer than we would like for elective treatment in particular. Every penny of our new health and care levy will go to the NHS and social care so we can make a start on that backlog. We are backing the NHS to help it to reduce its backlogs, and my right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue.

Sarah Olney: Households are facing the biggest hit to living standards on record, and they were looking to the Chancellor today to offer them some hope. We know from the OBR forecast that the Treasury will take an additional £13 billion in VAT thanks to inflation. Will the Chancellor tell us why he has not announced the emergency cut that the Liberal Democrats have called for, which would put £600 back into the pockets of the average family? VAT is an unfair tax that puts up prices for every single family in the UK, and makes up half of all the taxes paid by the poorest households compared with less than a fifth of those paid by the richest.

Rishi Sunak: I think it wrong to suggest that there has been a VAT windfall. If the hon. Lady looks at the numbers in the OBR forecast, she will see that its projection for VAT receipts in the forthcoming year is lower than its previous projection in October. We are helping working families, with a £6 billion tax cut which will put £330 into the pockets of 30 million workers across the United Kingdom.

Robert Jenrick: I think that when my right hon. Friend gets back to his office, that portrait of Nigel Lawson will be looking down at him admiringly. This is a Conservative plan that we can all get behind. It rewards work, it gets the deficit down, and it incentivises investment from businesses rather than penalising them with windfall taxes.
As my right hon. Friend knows, energy prices are very volatile, so he is right to stand by the £9 billion package that he introduced previously and wait until the next update on the energy price cap in the late summer. If it does indeed show that energy prices are going to rise substantially, that will have a big impact on the poorest households. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will keep this matter under review, and will consider further measures if necessary to protect those households?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words of support, and I can reassure him that we keep everything under review. We have stood by the British people over the past few years, and we will continue to stand by them. It is thanks to the responsible decisions of this Government that we are able to provide the support that is required when the times call for it.

Seema Malhotra: Consumer spending is vital to the growth of our economy in the aftermath of the pandemic, but with inflation at its highest level for 30 years—the Chancellor has seen the data—consumer confidence is declining, hitting our small businesses hard and setting back their recovery from the pandemic. Why on earth is the Chancellor not fully U-turning on his rise in national insurance contributions at this time—a rise that the Government themselves have admitted will increase inflation and decrease spending power?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady may not realise that for 70% of people, this is more generous than doing what she suggests. Those people will pay less tax as a result of this policy as opposed to the one that she advocates, and I believe that it is the right policy. We are on the side of hard-working people, and this will help them at a time when they need that help.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Chancellor for his statement, which has been warmly welcomed by the people and businesses of Wimbledon, and commend him for his analysis of some of the challenges to the economy. One measure that he could move from temporary to permanent is the super deduction, so will he consider that as part of his consultation? I think it is already evident that this would be the most effective way of changing behaviour and securing greater R&D and capital expenditure.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and look forward to discussing those topics with him over the coming months. The document outlines a range of options for cutting taxes on investment. Hopefully he will have a chance to digest those, and I look forward to discussing them with him.

Stephen Timms: The Conservative party introduced universal credit, but instead of uprating it in line with current inflation, the Chancellor has chosen to increase the size of the household support fund. Those who have heard of it have to go to their local councils to receive it. What evidence, if any, does the Chancellor have that the fund is effective in delivering help to the families who need help most?

Rishi Sunak: The feedback that I receive from colleagues suggests that it has been effective, and I trust councils to know who are the people in their areas who most need our help. I used to be a local government Minister, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have enormous respect and regard for local authorities. However, we did not just do that: in the autumn Budget, we gave a £2 billion cut through the tax rate on universal credit to nearly 2 million people on the lowest incomes.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend heartily for the cut in fuel duty, and for waiving the national insurance threshold. I hope I can now retire from campaigning on that issue; it would make my life a lot easier! My right hon. Friend has stood up for workers and for people on low incomes, and we should not forget that. As he said, it is this party that is the true workers’ party of the United Kingdom.
When my right hon. Friend considers a reform of the apprenticeship levy, will he ensure that at its heart is a focus on enabling more disadvantaged young people to take up apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for  his support, and I can give him that reassurance. Apprenticeships are fantastic and we want to ensure that they are continually supported, but we will look at all aspects of this to ensure that we also provide incentives for the training that we want to see. My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that this is the party of the workers, and that is in no small part thanks to his campaigning. I congratulate him on making the case so well.

David Linden: It is clear from the Chancellor’s statement that he wanted the buzzword to be security, but one of the issues that did not appear in the statement was food insecurity. Given that 60% of Glaswegians do not possess a car and many of my constituents do not own their homes to put solar panels  on them, what does the Chancellor say to the people whose children will go to bed hungry tonight, and why was there no mention of that in his statement?

Rishi Sunak: We have already created the holiday activity and food programme, which provides both food and enriching activities for children outside term time. There is also the household support fund, and Barnett consequentials will enable the Scottish Government to provide the same support for vulnerable families in their communities.

Kevin Hollinrake: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and, in particular, the rise in the national insurance threshold. It will not only help low earners, which is important, but bring a welcome simplicity to the system. I also welcome the reform of the apprenticeship levy, but will the Chancellor look at the amount that can be transferred through the annual levy transfer? It is currently capped for larger organisations, and that restricts the amount that they can give to smaller organisations. A reform would see much better use of the apprenticeship levy, which would help small and medium-sized enterprises, local authorities and others.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is right to point out that the significant increase in personal tax thresholds is particularly well targeted at those on lower and middle incomes, and I look forward to discussing with him, over the coming months, potential reforms in the way in which we tax training and apprenticeships.

Emma Hardy: I have just received a message from Michael, who is a carer for his disabled wife in Hull. He says:
“So no help for the disabled. I guess I’ll have to put my wife into hospital next winter so she can stay warm”.
What would the Chancellor say to Michael, who does not drive a car and is not planning to install solar panels on his rented home?

Rishi Sunak: Obviously it is hard for me to comment on individual circumstances, but in general I am proud of this Government’s support for those who are disabled. We have spent some £58 billion on disability welfare. When I last checked the figures, the OECD ranked us higher than many other countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Austria, so we are generous and compassionate in our support for those who are disabled.
We are taking a range of measures, not least spending £1 billion to help people with disabilities into work and providing £1.5 billion for the disabled facilities grant to improve the conditions of their homes. Today we announced a small amount of extra funding to improve the provision of Changing Places toilets across the country, an issue about which I care passionately. That funding will increase their number by 40%, so that the quarter of a million people with complex disabilities who need access to such facilities will now find one closer to where they need it.

Darren Henry: I thank the Chancellor for what I thought was an excellent spring statement, and look forward to seeing how it will benefit my constituents. I was particularly pleased to hear about  the cut in fuel duty. However, I was a bit disappointed not to hear anything specific about an increase in funding for mental health. Is that something that the Chancellor will consider in the future?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we announced a significant increase for the NHS back at the spending review in the autumn, with a record NHS spending settlement including big increases for mental health. The Department of Health and Social Care will be able to provide him with the exact split, but he can rest assured that we are making good progress with dedicated funding for the cause that he rightly champions.

John Martin McDonnell: Let us be absolutely clear that benefits and pensions are going to rise by 3.1% while inflation is predicted to be between 7% and 10%. That is a cut for some of the poorest in our society. I want to make this specific appeal to the Chancellor. The people I am desperately worried about in my constituency are those who are forced to live on benefit, largely through disability or ill health, and the poorer pensioners. We know that energy prices are rising rapidly, and that the assistance provided so far will not enable them to cope. When we get to November, those people will be freezing in their own homes and lives will be put at risk. One simple solution is to double the winter fuel allowance. Can I appeal to him to go away, think about that and come back sooner rather than later to give vulnerable people some confidence in the future?

Rishi Sunak: All the people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned will benefit from the proposals we put forward last month, with £9 million to help everybody. The doubling in size of the household support fund is there for his local council and others to use to support those most in need, and he is right to highlight the winter fuel payments, which are payments of up to £300 for those pensioners. Many of those on pension credit will also have access to the warm home discount, which is an extra £150.

Anthony Browne: As a member of the Treasury Committee and chair of the Conservative Back-Bench Treasury committee, I congratulate the Chancellor on this spring statement’s tax cutting and tax simplifying, with many measures to help hard-working families make ends meet and to promote economic growth. I also very much welcome the publication of the tax plan. Too often, Governments are tactical about their tax policies, leaving great uncertainty for businesses about what will happen next. We now have a strategy for the years ahead. Tax policy must be informed by a strategy; it also needs to be credible and fair. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in all the measures the Treasury has introduced since 2019, it is the poorest households that have benefited the most and the wealthiest that have contributed the most?

Rishi Sunak: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment and look forward to working with him in both his committees over the coming months, particularly to flesh out the business tax options that we want to finalise by the autumn Budget. He is right to say that the distribution analysis published today, which  looks at all tax, welfare and spending decisions, shows that this Government have been highly progressive in their actions and that those on the lowest incomes have benefited the most.

Caroline Lucas: Once again, quite incredibly, there is climate-shaped hole at the heart of this statement. Once again, the Chancellor did not even mention the word “climate”. That is all the more unforgivable as the measures we need to tackle the climate crisis and those we need to tackle the cost of living crisis are the same. With 6 million people now facing fuel poverty, where is the home retrofit revolution and the investment that we need to make 19 million homes warmer by 2030, saving families £400 on their bills and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process? How many more people will have to freeze in their homes before he will act?

Rishi Sunak: We already acted in the spending review last autumn to outline billions of pounds to improve the energy efficiency of hundreds of thousands of homes across the country. The hon. Lady is right to say that that saves £300. We have grants available of up to £20,000, depending on the scheme, that will do that over the remainder of this Parliament. Also, the energy company obligation does the same thing for hundreds of thousands of people in fuel poverty through their energy bills. So we already did it; we are getting on with it. And I think she missed the fact we have just cut VAT today on energy-saving materials.

Andrew Jones: I welcome the statement from the Chancellor today, and in particular the way in which the most support is being provided to those who will need it most. Can I ask specifically about the section on the research and development review? Much of our economy is going digital and we are seeing an increasing focus on the knowledge economy and the creative sectors. Will that be at the core of his investment plans for the future, since that is how we will secure future growth?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a thoughtful point. Innovation, broadly defined, along with multi-factor productivity, accounts for about half our productivity growth. The pace has slowed recently and we need to reinvigorate it. I set out a strategy to do that at the Mais lecture, and key to that will be driving up private sector investment in R&D and innovation. The tax cuts and reforms we will put in place in the autumn will help us to achieve that end.

Clive Efford: Can the Chancellor confirm that someone in employment who is on universal credit will see an increase in the taper between £9,500 and £12,500—a £1,290 clawback to the Chancellor? What is he doing to address that issue, which will involve the poorest workers in the country facing a £1,290 increase in their taxes?

Rishi Sunak: I think the hon. Gentleman is describing how the taper works. It withdraws benefits as people’s incomes rise. That is how the system is designed. However, I can tell him that, because we took action to cut the universal credit taper rate last autumn, we delivered a tax cut of £2 billion for almost 2 million people. I gave  the example earlier of a single mother with two children who is renting and working full time on the national living wage. As a result of all our tax, welfare and wage changes, that person will be £1,600 better off.

Richard Drax: I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, as far as it went. He is right to say that he cannot print more money, borrow more money or spend more money. Can I ask him to bring forward the tax cuts, particularly for the lower earners, because as he rightly says, they spend their money far more wisely than the Government do? That will put more cash in their pockets to meet the increasing bills.

Rishi Sunak: That is exactly what we are doing. The increase in the personal tax threshold in July was brought in far quicker than these things normally are, but we wanted to do it as quickly as possible. This will put £330 in the pockets of 30 million people up and down the country.

Lilian Greenwood: This year, the Chancellor is delivering the largest fall in living standards since Office for National Statistics records began in 1956-57. Will he tell us how many more people will fall into poverty as a result of his failure to ensure that increases in social security match inflation?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady is describing the impact of inflation on people’s incomes. Of course that will have an impact; we have been very clear and honest about that. That is not just happening here; it is happening everywhere across the world as we grapple with higher inflation, but the measures we are taking today will make a significant difference to support working families in weathering some of the challenges ahead. Again, for those who are most vulnerable, we started this journey in autumn with a tax cut to universal credit, and we are doubling the household support fund today to £1 billion.

Ruth Edwards: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement today. It will do a lot to help many of my constituents in Rushcliffe. Can he reassure me and my constituents that the tax-cutting measures announced today will continue to be the focus of this Conservative Government and that they are just the start of what is possible if we continue to build a stronger, greener economy?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We started in October, and we have made progress today. The tax plan published today shows that we will continue to make progress, cutting taxes for businesses and people over the remainder of this Parliament.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Chancellor is of course the Conservative and Unionist Chancellor for all of the United Kingdom, but is it not a fact that because of the deficiencies in the Northern Ireland protocol, none of his flagship programmes will apply to Northern Ireland until he goes cap in hand to the European Community and seeks its permission to apply these VAT differentials to Northern Ireland? If the European Community says no, what is the Conservative and Unionist Chancellor going to do for our part of the United Kingdom?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I have specifically highlighted the deficiencies of the protocol. I look forward to having those discussions with the Commission. Obviously these are not particularly traded goods, because they are installed, so there ought to be a strong argument that they are included, particularly as we are all now collectively grappling with an energy crisis. However, I do not want to pre-empt the Foreign Secretary’s conversations on the protocol. It is not right to say that the flagship policies do not apply to Northern Ireland. The increase in the personal tax thresholds, the income tax cut and the fuel duty cut will apply to Northern Ireland, and I know that they will benefit his constituents and millions of others across Northern Ireland.

Peter Aldous: I welcome the announcements that my right hon. Friend has made about national insurance thresholds, fuel duty and the increase in the household support fund. The past two years have been very challenging for the poorest and most vulnerable, and it is going to get a whole lot tougher. As we saw with his swift and right decision to raise universal credit at the start of the pandemic—this was too hastily reduced—the best way of targeting support for those who need it is through the benefits system. May I urge him to look closely in the coming days and weeks at the levels of UC and other benefits, and the means of uprating them?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I strongly believe that the best way to help people sustainably is to move them off welfare and into work. That is what this Government are doing. Our record on doing so is incredibly strong, and we are throwing the kitchen sink, in terms of both money and policies, which the International Monetary Fund has described as “well targeted”, at supporting people as they make that transition and putting more money in their pockets.

Andy McDonald: The Chancellor really has not helped those in greatest need. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the current uprating of working-age social security benefits will mean 400,000 people falling into poverty this year. With inflation now forecast to average about 8% in 2023, will he reflect on the very different circumstances the country finds itself in and uprate benefits by the inflation rate forecast in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook?

Rishi Sunak: The way that benefits and indeed pensions are uprated is the same every year, and it has been done in the same way for more than a decade. We are making sure that we support people from welfare into work, which is the most sustainable way to help them. Someone moving from UC into full-time work at the national living wage is £6,000 better off. That is why I am pleased that because of our management of the economy there are now record numbers of job vacancies and the support to help people get those jobs.

Gareth Davies: Thousands of people across my constituency will welcome the targeted measures announced by the Chancellor today. Will he reconfirm for the House that he agrees that the best way to tackle the cost of living issues that people face is through the dignity of a job and the security of a regular pay cheque? That is why it is so important that unemployment—[Interruption.] I ask  Opposition Members to listen. It is why it is so important that unemployment has fallen every month for the past year, and they should welcome that.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts the point eloquently: the best way to help people is to get them into work. That is why we are creating record numbers of jobs and then making sure that not only are those jobs well paid, but people keep more of the money they earn. That is the approach of this Conservative Government.

Tim Farron: There appears to be no plan from the Chancellor, glossy or otherwise, for farming and food security. Is he aware that hundreds and hundreds of farmers are leaving the industry because of the botching of the transition from the old basic payment scheme to the new system? If he were to peg the basic payment scheme at its current rate, rather than halving it over the next two years, he would at least give time for farmers to be able to catch up and get into the new schemes. As it stands, farmers are leaving the industry just at the moment when we are facing an international food security crisis. Will he rethink and back British farmers?

Rishi Sunak: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, given that we are constituency neighbours, I also represent plenty of farmers and I listen to their concerns. The Agriculture Secretary is doing an excellent job of transitioning from the old system to the new. The overall funding for farming has been protected by this Government and the same level of funding is available, as we promised it would be. I want to see more British food grown here and to see us supporting British food—of course I do, and I think the British public will as well.

Mike Wood: The shadow Chancellor quoted Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis’s comments from before the spring statement, but since the statement he has written:
“That £3,000 rise of threshold to £12,570 is a gain of £330 a year and more than offsets the…rise for many on lower incomes. Good call.”
Just what proportion of workers will now be getting more money from the higher threshold than they pay in the health and social care levy?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing that helpful tweet with the House, but I would say to him that the number he is looking for is 70%—70% of workers will pay less because of the increase in thresholds, even taking into account the new levy. That is why this Government are on the side of hard-working British taxpayers.

Kate Green: I do not think the Chancellor understands the depth of despair and fear among the very lowest-income households in this country, for example, those whose incomes were already below the thresholds for national insurance or tax—those who have to rely on social security benefits as they are not able to work because of caring responsibilities, health or disability. To uprate benefits by less than half the rate of inflation at the same time as families face particular pressures on paying for the basics of energy and food will simply leave those families  destitute. Will he please heed the calls from around the House this afternoon and look again at his benefits uprating policy?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said, for those who are most vulnerable we are providing an extra half a billion pounds, and we are doubling the size of the household fund—local authorities are best placed to direct that funding. But we do want to support people into work, which is why I am proud of the record we have.

Felicity Buchan: I warmly welcome the tax cuts announced today, especially with the focus on low and middle earners. I note that the OBR has said today that interest payments on debt will quadruple next year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that with interest payments on our debt at £80 billion we need to maintain discipline on spending going forward?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right; the increase in debt payments is historic and it gives a glimpse of some of the risks facing us going forward. That is why it is right that we maintain headroom against our fiscal rules, and the best way to do that, in order to deliver a lower-tax economy, is to remain very disciplined on further public spending.

Dave Doogan: The Chancellor has detailed a small number of fiscal interventions and they will be a small mercy for the poorest in our society. May I ask his advice on what families with a child suffering from a life-shortening condition will receive as a result of his measures today? Children suffering from life-limiting conditions are often at home, where they need to be kept warm 24 hours a day, seven days a week, often with specialist equipment running. The Children’s Hospices Across Scotland charity is receiving alarming calls from people whose energy bill estimates are going up in the region of £268 to £720 a month. What hope for them, Chancellor?

Rishi Sunak: In the autumn spending review we announced record funding settlements, not just for health, but across the board. That resulted in Barnett consequentials of, if I recall it correctly, about £4.5 billion annually for the Scottish Government. Obviously, they can use that to support their local communities in the way that they feel is best. Again, there have been further Barnetts today as a result of the household support fund.

Paul Bristow: With a 5p cut in fuel duty, the lifting of the national insurance threshold and a plan to cut income tax, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that this Government are a tax-cutting Government? On the Government side of the House, we trust people on how best to spend their own money.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he is absolutely right: we want people to be able to keep more of their own money. The tax plan announced today represents the biggest net cut to personal taxes in a quarter of a century, proving that we very much are on the side of hard-working British people.

Ellie Reeves: Many of my constituents are having to choose between putting food on the table or heating their homes. At my local food bank last week, staff told me that they were facing  levels of demand that they had never seen before. Meanwhile, the boss of BP’s salary has increased to almost £4.5 million. Surely the Chancellor must see that it is time for a windfall tax on oil and gas, to tackle rising energy bills.

Rishi Sunak: I have already addressed this and I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the Prime Minister’s forthcoming energy security strategy, which will ensure that British people have affordable, secure and reliable energy and, most importantly, in the process will support British jobs and British investment.

Robin Millar: I welcome this statement and I agree with the Chancellor that this is a statement for the Union, because in these uncertain and unusual times it is the strength of our economy that helps us in positions on defence, trade and more. We are maintaining generous levels of support for devolved Administrations, in Scotland, in Wales and in parts of England. So it is vital that UK taxpayers can be assured that they are receiving value for money for expenditure behind devolved curtains. Will the new Cabinet Efficiency and Value for Money Committee be paying attention to that?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I look forward to taking up his suggestion and having further conversations with him about it. I am glad that over 1 million Welsh taxpayers will benefit from the announcements we made today.

Zarah Sultana: The richest Member of Parliament just spoke about how he understands the impact that the cost of living crisis is having on millions of people, but what he said will sound like a cruel joke to people across the country. Energy bills are rocketing, while fossil fuel giants BP and Shell are set to make £40 billion in profits this year. Why has the Chancellor refused to introduce a windfall tax on those companies to fund the restoration of the old, lower, energy cap? Is it because he would rather squeeze the livelihoods of ordinary people than the profits of the super-rich?

Rishi Sunak: With regards to the livelihoods of ordinary people, they have just received a £330 tax cut today and a discount on their fuel bill, with more tax cuts to come. This Government are on the side of hard-working British families.

Matt Vickers: I want to ask about the national insurance threshold change—the one that Martin Lewis described as “the big one”. Can my right hon. tax-cutting Friend confirm that this will result in an actual tax cut for more than 30 million people—in fact, for anyone who earns less than £35,000?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right, and I thank him for his support. This change will put £330 in the pockets of 30 million hard-working British families, including many in Stockton South, and it means that 70% of workers will be better off, even accounting for the new health and care levy.

Stephen Kinnock: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on steel, the Chancellor talked a lot about the steel compensation that has been paid. While that is, of course, welcome, the fact is that British steelmakers are still paying 61% more than their German competitors. Steel is a foundational industry that is about good jobs, decarbonisation and our sovereign capability, so why is there absolutely nothing in the statement for our steel industry?

Rishi Sunak: We have programmes in place to support our energy-intensive industries, and we remain in close dialogue with all companies in all sectors. Our track record on supporting industry is strong, and we continue to create jobs and make sure that British workers are well supported.

Louie French: I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements today, which will help people across Old Bexley and Sidcup with the cost of living, and support local businesses as our local economy recovers. However, in stark contrast to these announcements, people in outer-London areas such as Bexley are facing an eye-watering 8.8% increase in the Labour Mayor of London’s council tax precept, which we continue to see little benefit from. Even worse, drivers and local businesses face the prospect of paying more than £4,000 a year as a result of the ultra low emission zone expansion. That is clearly a tax raid that will have little proven environmental impact on outer London. Does he agree that this tax raid by Sadiq Khan on hard-working people across Bexley should be stopped?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Even if the Labour Mayor of London is not standing up for his constituents, I know my hon. Friend will stand up for his hard-working constituents in Bexley and Sidcup. He will have seen today that we are on their side; we are cutting their taxes.

Wera Hobhouse: The Chancellor is still not agreeing to a windfall tax on the super profits of the oil and gas giants. Such a tax would hit the shareholders, not workers and their jobs. It would not hamper business from operating successfully. Why is he protecting wealthy shareholders?

Rishi Sunak: I fear this is getting a little repetitive. I believe that we will see more investment in British industry, more investment in the North sea, more energy security and more jobs created. I look forward to companies bringing forward their plans for that in the coming weeks and months.

Alex Norris: I am old enough to remember when levelling up was the centrepiece of the Government’s domestic policy. People will be incredulous that we did not hear a single mention of it from the Chancellor this afternoon. He talks of low growth; we have low growth because we are not unleashing the potential of the regions of this country. It is time for the Chancellor to just admit that levelling up is a sham.

Rishi Sunak: The White Paper from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was in fact warmly welcomed by many colleagues from across the House. More broadly, is backed up with tens,  if not hundreds, of billions of pounds of extra funding. The results are seen in our employment growth, which has been strongest in those regions outside London and the south-east.

Florence Eshalomi: The Chancellor confirmed a business rate discount for businesses up and down the country, to a rateable value of £110,000. A number of businesses in my constituency do not qualify for that. A number of businesses across London did not get any benefit during the pandemic. One of the key ways that the Chancellor could help many businesses—not just those in Vauxhall—is through VAT cuts for tourism. People are not coming back to the tourism sector; we have seen record low numbers. Does the Chancellor agree that a permanent cut to 12.5% will help those businesses get back on their feet?

Rishi Sunak: All statistics show that the hospitality industry is recovering very well: cash balances are healthy, and business insolvencies are down. That is in part thanks to the support that we have put behind that industry. The uncapped business rate discount will provide support to hundreds of thousands of businesses. It is right that we target support at those who need our help most, whether they are businesses or families and individuals.

Patrick Grady: Is the humanitarian funding that the Chancellor announced for Ukraine in addition to aid flows already planned within the 0.5% budget, or will it squeeze planned expenditure elsewhere in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?

Rishi Sunak: All official development assistance announcements are handled by the Foreign Secretary. Within the overall budget, there is always contingency, and space annually for responses to humanitarian disasters that cannot be foreseen. It is not a question of squeezing other things out at all; this is part of planned spend.

Chris Bryant: I commend the Government’s action on Russian sanctions, but we cannot possibly think that this is “job done.” Mariupol still burns; children are fleeing the bombing of their home. We still have not even introduced a sanction regime that is as tough as the sanction regime on Iran. Can I urge the Chancellor to go a bit further? We need to sanction all the Russian banks, not just 60% of them. We need to tackle the trust funds, such as that recently set up by Alisher Usmanov to protect his assets in the UK. We need to tackle the families and the hangers-on, such as Lavrov’s family, who are in the UK, and we need to tackle shipping. We must do all these things for the people of Ukraine as fast as possible.

Rishi Sunak: I have been working very closely with my counterparts in G7 economies and beyond to co-ordinate our financial and economic sanctions, which I am more responsible for. I am highly confident that what we have done is world-leading, particularly with regards to acts on bank freezes. We are constantly in dialogue with our partners to make sure the action we take is effective when it is co-ordinated.

Chris Bryant: Why do you do that? It is shameful when you do that.

Rishi Sunak: No, it is not remotely, actually. There has been good unity in the House on this topic. The hon. Gentleman claims that somehow we are behind other countries when it comes to sanctioning Russian banks; it is simply not true. This Government are taking a leading role in this. We are ahead of most of our peers. He does not know, but I know, because I am in the conversations with Finance Ministers about where else they are prepared to go. I am very confident that we have done a lot and have played a leading role internationally in bringing others along with us.

Stephen Farry: We have heard the Chancellor try to excuse his failure to increase benefits in line with inflation. He has referred to the universal credit taper and the national living wage, which help those people on benefits who are in work. However, does he recognise that the majority of people on benefits in the UK are not in work, and there is nothing in this budget to help them?

Rishi Sunak: I think the hon. Gentleman missed the household support fund announcement, which is specifically for local councils, so that they can help those who are most vulnerable. Many of those people who are not currently in work can, with the right support, care and attention, be supported into work. That is something that this Government are spending a lot on doing.

Barbara Keeley: Today, the Welsh Government announced a £500 payment to unpaid family carers, to recognise their commitment during the pandemic. Unpaid carers in Scotland receive the carer’s allowance supplement. Meanwhile, carers in England get a miserly carer’s allowance, which is increasing by only £2 this year. That means not only that the sacrifice and commitment of unpaid carers in England is going unrewarded, but that carers are being driven further into financial hardship. How many more need to be pushed into poverty before this Government act to value carers, and give them the targeted support they deserve?

Rishi Sunak: We do value carers. There are fewer people in poverty today than when we first came into office—1.7 million people fewer in absolute poverty than in 2010, after housing costs. Also, today we have topped up the household support fund, in order to provide support to the most vulnerable who need help.

Sam Tarry: This week it was revealed that 75% of people in my constituency are struggling to pay for basic groceries. The OBR’s analysis following today’s statement has said that we face the largest fall in disposable incomes since the 1950s. Will the Chancellor visit my constituency, sit down with the people who use the local food bank, many of whom are in work, and see just how little the policies announced today will do to support them, to get them into work, and to allow them to live with dignity in their community?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Those in work, particularly on low incomes, will benefit disproportionately from the policies that have been announced today. I have given plenty of examples already, but a single mother with two children who is renting, on universal credit, and working full time, earning the national living wage, will be £1,600 better off as a result  of all the policies we have announced on taxes and welfare. We are supporting exactly the people the hon. Gentleman talks about.

Deidre Brock: The Climate Change Committee’s estimates suggest that the overall price tag for retrofitting the UK’s homes—considered some of the most leaky and energy-inefficient in Europe—is £27 billion a year over the next 25 years. Will the Chancellor recognise that this issue needs real commitment and investment, not just tinkering around the edges?

Rishi Sunak: No. In the spending review, we announced the largest investment in upgrading home energy efficiency that this country has ever seen—billions and billions of pounds across a range of different schemes, helping hundreds of thousands of households with the costs of upgrading their energy.

Barry Gardiner: Can the Chancellor explain why, in the fifth-richest country in the world, and under his stewardship of the economy, this morning’s news reported that a mother would not accept potatoes from a food bank because she did not have enough money to boil them?

Rishi Sunak: I am very sorry to hear that, and I am hopeful—in fact, confident—that the policies we have announced today will help those who are most vulnerable. We have made sure, as we have over the last two years, that we are standing by the British people, and that is what the policies announced today do.

Karin Smyth: I am old enough to remember the rampant inflation of the 1990s, when I started my career. I am old enough to remember when, under Ted Heath’s Government, we had to go to the local café because we had no lights on in the house. However, I am not old enough to remember Anthony Eden and the 1950s. What does the Chancellor have to say today to pensioners who worked through the 1950s about the fact that he is presiding over the greatest fall in living standards since that time?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased that, because of the actions of Conservative-led Governments since 2010, the state pension is £2,000 higher today; 700 of that is specifically because of the triple lock. That shows that this Government are on the side of pensioners.

Tommy Sheppard: The Chancellor is proposing to cut the value of state social security payments by at least 4% and putting up tax rates for those on average and below-average incomes, yet he refuses even to countenance asking those who have extreme wealth, or the corporations that are making obscene profits, to pay a little more. Is not the truth, Chancellor, that this is just a plan to increase inequality in the United Kingdom?

Rishi Sunak: We are asking companies—especially large successful companies—to pay more. That was announced last year and legislated for, and it will come into force next year. The corporation tax rate will rise from 19% to 25% to ensure that we do spread the burden fairly in recovering from coronavirus.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The household support fund exists only because, thanks to this Chancellor, people do not have enough income to eat or to pay their bills. With pensions and benefits set to rise by a measly 3.1% and the minimum wage by 59p, and with inflation peaking at over 7%, today’s uplift to the fund is more evidence of his continued failure to protect the hardest hit, isn't it?

Rishi Sunak: The national living wage is actually going up by 6.6%—it is one of the highest increases we have seen in the national living wage, and it will mean that someone working full time on the national living wage earns £1,000 more this year.

Jamie Stone: The village of Altnaharra in my constituency is the coldest place in the UK every single winter. A great number of households in my constituency rely on domestic fuel for their heating—they have absolutely no choice. Right now, they are faced with crippling bills landing on their doorsteps. I do not want the Chancellor to feel that he has to repeat himself, but could I ask in the spirit of good will and co-operation whether he will agree to my meeting some of his ministerial team to look at different ways in which we could tackle this problem, which is hurting my constituents, in the coldest part of Britain, very badly indeed?

Rishi Sunak: I am always happy to hear suggestions from the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to arrange a meeting for him. I wanted to make sure that those off the gas grid still benefited from the energy package that we put in place in February, and it will work on electricity meters, so that will happen. As a rural MP myself, I appreciate the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will happily arrange the meeting for him.

Richard Burgon: Oil and gas giants are making £900 profit per second, while millions of people are having sleepless nights worrying about whether they will be able to heat their homes. Does the Chancellor think that the right of these firms to make these super-profits is more important than the right of people to stay warm? If not, surely now is the time for a windfall tax on these profits to fund lowering people’s energy bills.

Rishi Sunak: I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we already have a supplementary corporation tax on oil and gas companies. They pay 40% corporation tax—twice as much as the rate paid by all other companies—and it is right that they do. Going forward, as the Prime Minister’s strategy will outline, we want to see more investment in the North sea, more British energy security and more British jobs.

Ruth Cadbury: Private sector tenants on low incomes in my constituency face ever-rising rents, which in many cases are well above local housing allowance levels. These are people on universal credit, and over half are working families who are having to make the choice of whether to heat or eat. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the levels of local housing allowance so that my constituents do not have to take £200, £300 and £400 from their non-housing element to pay their rent?

Rishi Sunak: Because of the increases to local housing allowance that this Government put in place for the pandemic, and that they have maintained, about 1.5 million people—the poorest in our society—will have £600 a year more in local housing allowance, which will help. The hon. Lady talked about a family on low income. Just so that she is aware, as a result of all the tax and welfare changes we have made, including to the taper and the national living wage, a family with two children that is renting, with one parent working full time and the other working part time on the national living wage, will be about £3,000 better off. I know that that will help them through the challenging months ahead.

Alan Brown: Brownings the Bakers makes and sells products and distributes them right across the UK through some of the major UK supermarkets. I wrote to the Chancellor highlighting the fact that its electricity costs have increased from £4,000 a week to £11,000 a week. If it wants fixed costs, it has been offered an eye-watering £17,000 a week for a two-year contract. Obviously, the Treasury makes more money in VAT returns out of these eye-watering increases, so rather than the Chancellor having to write back to me, can he confirm to me here and now that I can tell John Gall, the managing director, that he is doing nothing to help businesses such as Brownings the Bakers?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on VAT. If he looks at the figures published today, he will see that the OBR’s estimate of VAT receipts in the forthcoming year is actually lower than the amount it had expected in the autumn. We are providing a tax cut for small businesses today—£1,000 due to the increase in the employment allowance, and that will kick in in just a couple of weeks.

Rachael Maskell: As always, the Chancellor has forgotten the poorest—those claiming pensions, those claiming social security and those living below the minimum income threshold, who have been hit by the cost of living crisis. All that my poorest constituents want is food, warmth and shelter against soaring house prices. All they got was 6p a day from the housing support fund on average. Will the Chancellor go back again and review the rise in social security payments? Those people need that money, or else they will go hungry, they will experience hypothermia and they will be homeless.

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is important that the questions are very brief at this stage if I am going to get the last few people in.

Rishi Sunak: With regard to supporting those who are homeless, the spending review in the autumn increased support for homelessness by 85%, compared with 2019 levels—to over £640 million, I think, a year. We are currently seeing the number of rough sleepers at very low levels, compared with the last several years, and hopefully at the lowest level in a decade by the end of this Parliament.

Ian Byrne: I have asked this of the Chancellor on numerous occasions. On Monday, I led a delegation to Downing Street to deliver a letter urging him to grant a right to food. With  millions having to choose between starving or freezing in their homes because of the cost of living crisis, when will the penny drop with the Chancellor that hunger is a political choice, and it is he who controls the levers to eradicate it? Does he agree that it is a dereliction of his duty to the security of every household that we all serve not to enshrine into UK law access to food for all?

Rishi Sunak: We have actually invested more than £200 million a year in the holiday activity and food programme to provide both food and enriching activities to hundreds of thousands of children across the country.

Fleur Anderson: In Putney, 31% of children live in poverty. The biggest measure that the Chancellor could bring in is scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which is cruel and leaves children in poverty. Has he assessed the two-child benefit cap, and when will he scrap it?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased that there are now 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty compared with 2010. The best way to make sure that children do not grow up in poverty is to ensure that they do not grow up in a workless household, and there are 700,000 fewer of those today as a result of the actions of this and previous Conservative Governments.

Peter Grant: The National Audit Office has found that, in a single year, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs allowed more than £300 million of fraudulent claims for research and development tax relief. We also know from other NAO reports that the Treasury is woefully bad at producing evidence to demonstrate that any of the tax relief policies actually deliver the required objectives. With that in mind, what assurance can we have that the announcement that the Chancellor has made today will lead to a genuine real-terms increase in R&D spend, and will not just become yet another taxpayer-funded get-rich-quick scheme?

Rishi Sunak: Government spending on R&D is increasing considerably over this Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the issues with our existing relief schemes. They do not work as well as they should. We are committed to tackling them. The final announcement will be made in the autumn for effect in the spring.

Olivia Blake: Figures from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have shown that destitution has more than doubled from 197,400 to over 400,000. Destitution is defined as two single people living on £100 a week after housing costs. Is the Chancellor happy that none of the announcements today will benefit those who are in destitution?

Rishi Sunak: That is categorically not the case. The policies that we have announced today will help British families up and down the country in all sorts of circumstances: we are making sure that work pays; we are supporting people into work; we are cutting the cost of fuel; and we have a plan to let our people to keep more of their own money in the years ahead. It is the right way to help people, and all the distribution analysis published today supports the fact that we are doing most for those on the lowest incomes.

Margaret Ferrier: Unpaid carers are increasingly worried about how they will afford to pay their bills. I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that they make an essential contribution to the UK. Will he set out whether he is considering any further measures to support unpaid carers?

Rishi Sunak: We are grateful to carers everywhere for the fantastic job that they do. I am confident that they and their families will benefit from the policies that we have announced today.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Chancellor for the help that he has given to my constituents. However, a constituent of mine has recently been in touch to say that the removal of red diesel would see her business experiencing an unsustainable increase in the cost of sales by some £400,000 annually. I am not being churlish, but does the Chancellor agree that this increase has come at a breaking point for businesses, and will he make allowances for the continuation of red diesel until the economy gets back on its feet?

Rishi Sunak: These changes were announced two years ago. They were consulted on and there are various exemptions in place, particularly to protect agriculture, which I know will be important to the hon. Gentleman. None the less, it is right that we go ahead with the changes as legislated.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Chancellor for his statement.

Alison Thewliss: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to use this opportunity to allow the Chancellor to hear a clarification. He suggested that the Scottish Government might want to follow the UK Government in eventually introducing a 19% rate of income tax. Would it be possible to get the Chancellor to correct the record? There is already a 19% rate of income tax for the lowest earners in Scotland, so in fact it is the UK Government who have to play catch-up with the Scottish Government.

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Lady knows, the Chair is not responsible for the speeches of Ministers. I am sure that, if any incorrect information has been given, the record will be corrected. Obviously, the Ministers on the Front Bench have heard her point.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Kit Malthouse: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services into the Metropolitan police’s counter-corruption arrangements.
In June last year, the Home Secretary came to the House to report on the findings of the Daniel Morgan independent panel. The panel’s report detailed a litany of historical failings by the Metropolitan police in respect of multiple investigations—failings that irreparably damaged the chances of a successful prosecution for Daniel Morgan’s brutal killing. My thoughts, and I am sure all Members’ thoughts, remain with Daniel’s family. I first met them over a decade ago.
As part of the Government’s response to that report, the Home Secretary commissioned the inspectorate to undertake an inspection of the Metropolitan police’s current approach to counter-corruption arrangements. I should note at the outset that the inspectorate did make some positive findings. The Metropolitan police remains an exemplar in investigating serious corruption and has good arrangements in place to support whistleblowers. It has also almost eliminated the backlog of officers awaiting security vetting, which was identified as a problem in a previous report. The inspectorate found no evidence that the force deliberately sought to frustrate the work of the Daniel Morgan independent panel, but the broad thrust and overarching conclusions of the report are troubling.
This inspection was commissioned to provide assurance for Daniel Morgan’s family and the wider public that the force had learned from failings in the past and had robust arrangements in place to prevent, identify and tackle corruption in its ranks. I am afraid that it is deeply disappointing that, in the light of the findings of this report, I cannot provide this assurance to the House. Indeed, the inspectorate felt that the Metropolitan police approach suggested
“a degree of indifference to the risk of corruption”.
This is alarming.
Corruption poses a significant threat wherever it rears its ugly head. If it is allowed to take root and wrap its tentacles around organisations and people, the potential impact is profound. This is especially true for policing—an institution that relies so heavily on public confidence and trust. The inspectorate’s report outlines a range of issues across all the systems that police forces employ to identify and manage corruption risks. This includes a failure to properly monitor recruits who could pose risks and to routinely share routine intelligence on officers.
The report paints a worrying picture of the Metropolitan police’s approach to exhibit and property management, creating opportunities for those tempted to abuse their position, and posing a risk to investigations.
The inspectorate found that there were more than 2,000 warrant cards unaccounted for. This is particularly concerning, coming as it does just over a year after a   police officer abused his position to murder a young woman in a heinous crime that shocked our country to its core.
The report concludes that the Metropolitan police is not able to confirm whether officers working in the most sensitive areas of policing have the right levels of vetting. Furthermore, despite repeated recommendations and good progress made in this area in other forces across England and Wales, the force cannot proactively monitor its IT systems—a crucial tool in identifying corruption. In total, the report contains five causes of concern, two areas for improvement and 20 recommendations for change.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London to set out her expectation that they respond to her with a clear action plan to remedy these failings. I welcome the deputy commissioner’s statement yesterday, recognising the need for comprehensive action. I put particular emphasis here on the responsibilities of the Mayor of London. Beyond the statutory responsibility on the Mayor to respond to the inspectorate’s report within 56 days, it is incumbent on City Hall to hold the Metropolitan police’s leadership to account for responding to past failings. This clearly has not happened here, and I urge the Mayor to work with the Home Office to ensure that a new commissioner can address these failings.
As she said in her statement to the House last year, the Home Secretary intends to update the House on the progress made in responding to the wide range of issues raised in the Daniel Morgan independent panel report. The Met Police published their response last Friday to the recommendations directed at them and, now that we have the inspectorate’s report, we expect to provide our overarching update soon.
Finally, I remind the House that the Home Secretary has also commissioned HMICFRS to undertake a wider inspection of vetting, counter-corruption and forces’ approach to identifying and tackling misogyny in their ranks. That is looking across England and Wales and will provide a crucial evidence base for part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry and inform any broader policy or legislative changes that might be required.
The report comes at a time when the Metropolitan Police are under intense scrutiny. I have found myself at the Dispatch Box discussing the force’s culture and standards all too frequently in recent months. As someone who over the years has worked alongside the Met and seen at first hand the incredible things that they are capable of achieving, I know there are thousands of officers, staff and volunteers across the organisation who perform their duties with skill, professionalism and pride every day. However, when things go wrong, it is vital to acknowledge that fact and take every necessary step to ensure that the failings of the past are not repeated. I commend this statement to the House.

Sarah Jones: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement—three hours’ advance sight, which is very good.
Yesterday, some of us gathered on Westminster Bridge to remember the Westminster Bridge attack five years ago. We remembered how our police ran into danger to protect us, and we remembered PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life. It is with great sadness that we go from a  day commemorating the very best of policing to discussing a report which, I am afraid, contains some very significant criticisms of the Metropolitan Police.
It is now 35 years since Daniel Morgan was murdered in a pub car park in south London—35 years for his family to wait for justice. I pay tribute to them, as the Minister has done. Daniel Morgan’s son lives in my constituency, and I know this report will be deeply upsetting for him and his family. The report lays bare issues of real concern. It is highly critical and tells a damning story of police corruption, of lessons not learned and of flawed procedures. The inspector noted with dismay that no one,
“had adopted the view that this must never happen again”.
The Met must accept all the recommendations included in the report and implement them in full with all possible speed.
As the Minister rightly noted, there was praise too in this report. For example, it was clear that the Met’s homicide investigation arrangements bear little resemblance to those of 35 years ago. The force solves the vast majority of homicides it investigates, as I can testify to in my own patch in Croydon.
Londoners need and deserve a police service they can not only trust, but be proud of. Whether on racism, homophobia, violence against women or corruption, we need to see the urgent reforms that will make that a reality. The outgoing commissioner must begin the process of implementation, but it must be a top priority for the new commissioner, who will carry forward the work.
However, the issues raised have national consequences. The Home Office must not stand back. Real leadership is needed. The Home Secretary and her Department must commit to engaging seriously with the issue of police reform, to avoid repeating such a scandal and to avoid a lifetime of pain and hurt for families like Daniel Morgan’s.
Labour has called for an overhaul of police standards, including reviews of vetting, training, misconduct proceedings and use of social media. It is vital that the Minister takes steps to identify whether the problems highlighted in the report are systemic in other forces across the country. The report shows that 50 people a year who had committed offences were recruited to the Met, including some who had connections to known criminals.
Given the seriousness of that finding, has the Minister asked all forces urgently to inform the Home Office of the number of new recruits every year who have committed offences? If he has, will he publish that data now? If he has not, why on earth has he not? We know that 2,000 warrant cards are unaccounted for. Has he asked all forces to inform the Home Office immediately how many of their warrant cards are unaccounted for? If he has, will he agree to publish that data?
In addition, the report notes that the Met does not know whether all those in sensitive posts have been cleared to the level needed. Is the Minister checking that nationally? The report also notes serious concerns about the storage and security of firearms in the Met. That is very worrying. Will the Minister commit to looking into that nationally?
We have a Home Office inquiry into culture and standards in the Met, which the Home Office has refused to put on a statutory footing. How can the Minister be  sure that the Angiolini inquiry will not fall foul of the same stumbling blocks encountered by the Daniel Morgan inquiry and mentioned in this report?
The original Daniel Morgan inquiry recommended a statutory duty of candour for police officers, but the Government opposed Labour’s amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to achieve that. Given the challenges faced to get information during the inquiry that we see in the report, will the Government change their mind and back our proposal?
The Home Secretary has promised a review of vetting standards, but the terms of reference have only recently been published and we do not know when the review will report. What is the Home Office doing in the meantime to ensure that vetting across the country is being carried out to the highest and most rigorous standards?
The Minister highlighted the role of the Mayor of London. The report clearly states that the joint MPS and Crown Prosecution Service review of the Daniel Morgan case in 2011-12 identified opportunities for organisational learning, but it is clear that the MPS paid little, if any, attention to the joint report when it was published. Why did the previous Mayor of London totally fail to ensure that action was taken after that 2012 report?
Finally, the Minister has said he will provide an overarching update in response to both this report and the recommendations in the panel report. That is welcome, but can he give us a concrete timeline for it?
I end by saying that the role of the HMICFRS was not to reinvestigate the murder, but to consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened. The family of Daniel have not seen justice done for his murder, and it is with them that our thoughts must remain.

Kit Malthouse: The various points that the hon. Lady raised in the first half of her remarks will be addressed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate as it looks at vetting procedures across the whole country. The purpose of the investigation commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was to show the leadership that she is looking for and to expose what we now know to be the systematic failings of the organisation and its failure to address the problems of the report over recent years. We will know more on the questions that the hon. Lady rightly asks about the worrying issues raised by this report when HMI concludes its national inspection, which I hope will be shortly.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the duty of candour, as I explained during the debate on the consideration of Lords amendments to the Policing Bill, we changed the regulations to make it a disciplinary offence, subject to dismissal, not to co-operate with an investigation, which we believe is a stronger sanction. The inspection report said that the Metropolitan Police had co-operated with the independent panel.
I am disappointed at the hon. Lady’s lack of attention to the oversight mechanism of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Over the past five years, the Mayor of London has been in control of an entire organisation whose job it is to hold the Metropolitan Police to account and to drive standards up. Certainly, in the four years between 2008 and 2012, when I was Deputy  Mayor for Policing and Crime, that was exactly what we tried to do. We initiated a race and faith inquiry that looked more widely at culture across the whole of the Met Police to try to drive improvement.
I would hope that the Mayor—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, is there any chance you could ask the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to stop barracking from a sedentary position? This is a very serious matter that must be addressed and taken seriously by all levels of Government, and that includes the Mayor of London. Given that that is the entire purpose of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, I am afraid I am not willing to ignore the fact that the holding of the organisation to account is primarily the function of City Hall.
We at the Home Office have our part to play in setting national standards, and we will absolutely do that, whether that is reviewing with the College of Policing the professional practice around vetting, as we are doing, or changing the regulations if we need to do so. In the immediate short term, however, the statutory obligation to respond lies with the Mayor of London and I hope he will fulfil his obligations within the 56 days set in law by this House.

Mike Wood: As the son of a retired police officer, I know the incredible work that the majority of police do to fight crime and keep us safe. When officers breach the high standards expected of them, it fundamentally undermines the trust that their work relies on. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the behaviour revealed in this report, and send a clear message that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated in any police force anywhere in the country?

Kit Malthouse: I applaud my hon. Friend’s sentiment. As someone who, like me, has an intimate knowledge of policing, I am sure he will acknowledge that there will be thousands of police officers up and down the land who are as disappointed and distressed by the revelations today as we are. They want to work in a profession—a vocation—of which they can be proud and which they know is trusted by the public. Making sure that this kind of corruption and behaviour is rooted out will be as much a part of their motivation as it is ours.

Ellie Reeves: I was six years old when Daniel Morgan was murdered in my constituency just round the corner from where I lived. His brutal murder shocked our community, and it was made worse by the fact that no one was convicted and that last year’s inquiry cited institutional corruption in the Met. Daniel’s family have campaigned for justice for 35 years. No other family should ever have to go through this, yet yesterday’s damning report found that not nearly enough has been done to ensure that it does not happen again. Will the Minister personally ensure that the next Met commissioner cleans up this failing force?

Kit Malthouse: I will certainly do my best to make sure that that is the case. As I say, the Home Secretary has written to the Mayor of London and the current commissioner asking for an assertive action plan to bring about these changes. I am sure the hon. Lady will have noted that HMI has put a limit of 12 months on the 20 improvements and changes that it needs to see, and it will require really assertive action by the Met  police to get all that work done within that 12-month period. Many people in this House will have had involvement or contact with the Morgan family. I myself was privileged to meet his mother on a number of occasions when I was deputy Mayor for policing, and indeed, along with other Members across the House, I pressed for the original inquiry. Given our commitment to their campaign and the incredible dedication they have shown, we now have a duty to do exactly as the hon. Lady says and make sure it does not happen again.

Munira Wilson: As the Minister himself has said, the regularity with which he has had to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the culture, standards and misjudgments of the Metropolitan police is alarming. Yesterday’s shocking report is just the latest in a long list of recent failings. Thousands of dedicated rank and file police officers work very hard and put themselves at risk every day to protect us. They, and millions of Londoners, deserve leadership in the Met that they can trust and have confidence in, not leaders who have “indifference” to the risks of corruption. Will the Minister confirm today that the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner appointment will not just be made by the Home Office and a Prime Minister who is himself under criminal investigation but will secure the approval of the Mayor of London and be subject to a cross-party vote of the Home Affairs Committee and the London Assembly’s police and crime committee?

Kit Malthouse: The process and appointment of the Met commissioner are established in law, and we cannot obviate that, but we are all, I hope, committed to making sure that the person we appoint will bring about the changes that we are all seeking as well as continue the fight against crime in the capital. In the meantime, as the current commissioner exits, I believe that in the proposed acting commissioner and current deputy commissioner we have an individual of integrity and commitment who has already made very welcome public statements about driving forward change.

Emily Thornberry: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing convention to be waived so that I can speak from the Back Benches on this matter. Alastair Morgan, Daniel’s brother, has been campaigning for some justice for his brother for 35 years and I have stood alongside him for the past 17. The Minister referred to the “original report”. It was not the original report. There have been many, many inquiries. There have been inquiries into inquiries. This has been going on for years and years, with corruption layered upon corruption and nobody ever telling the truth. It is no wonder, in those circumstances, that Alastair has said that the Metropolitan police
“cared more about its own tatty reputation than solving my brother’s murder.”
Now what do we see? We see an official report that states that it has
“found no evidence that someone, somewhere, had adopted the view that this must never happen again.”
Nobody even cares if it happens again. What is the Minister going to do about that? What are we going to do about the Met?

Kit Malthouse: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her commitment to the family campaign as well. As I explained, we have written to the Mayor and the commissioner demanding a plan of action and that they respond, as they have to in law, to the inspectorate with exactly that—an assertive, committed plan for change. Certainly the public statements that I have seen from the deputy commissioner indicate his personal commitment. Pleasingly, he made a particular point of saying that the police have not given up on the investigation and their attempt to try to catch Daniel’s killers. I hope that we will see a conclusion to that investigation as soon as possible.

Barry Sheerman: The Daniel Morgan case is one of those that I am most familiar with as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. If it were not for a Welsh solicitor called Glyn Maddocks, who has tirelessly followed this and never given up on it, we would not be where we are today. I pay tribute to him, his work, and the support he has given to the miscarriages of justice group. This is a very important occasion. I am a little sad that the Minister has made it a bit party political in blaming the Mayor. The fact is that we are faced with a tremendous crisis in the Met and in any police force where the relationship between the police breaks down and becomes sloppy, and we see—I did the research on this and I was astonished by it—the close links between senior Met police and organised crime. Surely that was wrong and it has to be sorted out.

Kit Malthouse: I also pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman has, to the entire team that have supported the family. I met them when I was deputy Mayor for policing. I have to confess that when I heard the story I was open-mouthed at what was revealed, hence the strong support I gave to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), for an inquiry. Admittedly, as the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, it is not the first, but hopefully it will bring us to some kind of conclusion on this matter. I was not seeking to make a party political point, merely to point out that there is a direct responsibility at City Hall—one that I took when I was doing the job—to drive forward the conclusion to this matter not only to reach some kind of closure for the family, but to ensure significant change in the organisation that will mean that this can never happen again.

Florence Eshalomi: We are back here again discussing the police. Some of the issues in this report about the vetting of police officers and the fact that some had links to known criminals will be quite shocking for a number of my constituents, who continue to be stopped and searched. Some of those constituents are on the gangs matrix, which had such a massive impact on their life in terms of finding jobs, access to benefits, and ability to rent. The Minister will know that in 2019 a freedom of information request revealed that a person as young as 13 was on the gangs matrix. How will he help to restore confidence in our communities who want to work with the police in addressing some of the issues, when we have known criminals involved, people not being vetted properly and some of my young people continuing to be on the gangs matrix?

Kit Malthouse: The solution to the problem of building trust between London’s various communities and the police is complex, but there are a variety of tools that we can deploy. First, we can make sure that the force better reflects the population of London. I am pleased that we are working closely with City Hall and the Met on their recruitment and diversity agenda, which is an important one that has been ongoing for some time. At the same time, we need to make sure that we are recruiting the right people, and this investigation has unearthed problems in our doing that. We need to make sure that the vetting net is as tight as possible so that we are getting in the right people with the right values who are able to deal with the hon. Lady’s constituents and others with integrity and respect to achieve the end we want to achieve, which is lower crime in the capital. That does require, as she says, that people know that when they meet a police officer in the street, or they are dealt with even under stop and search, they are dealing with somebody who has been through a rigorous process. Over the next 12 months we will monitor this closely and work with City Hall to make sure that that is exactly what it introduces.

Karen Buck: We have to rely on an efficient and effective police service that has the trust of all its communities, and we know from recent reports that the Met in particular has taken an absolute battering. Over the past decade, we lost 20,000 police. In the past couple of years, there has been a rapid ramping up to get back those police numbers and to deal with the issue of natural wastage. This is an incredible pressure on recruitment and vetting. What assessment has the Minister made of the capacity—not only within the Met, but nationwide—to ensure that speed of recruitment is not leading to the inclusion of people who have no right to be on the streets of our capital, policing it?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady is right that the rapid recruitment has put strains on the system, but we have been monitoring it very closely to ensure that the system is able to cope, and I believe that it is. I know she is not suggesting that the vast majority of recruits are not right-thinking and correct in their values, and I hope and believe that is the case. One of the improvements that the inspectorate did note that the Metropolitan police has achieved over the past couple of years is an elimination almost of the vetting backlog, which just three or four years ago stood at something like 37,000, astonishingly.[Official Report, 29 March 2022, Vol. 711, c. 3MC.] That has now been almost eliminated. That is a silver lining to the cloud of this report. As far as vetting is concerned, we have debated that just recently in the House. There are improvements that need to be made, not least on the monitoring of social media, which has just started in the Metropolitan police. It is an area to which we need to pay constant attention if we are to build that trust with London’s communities.

Wendy Chamberlain: This review today is rightly about what the Metropolitan police is doing now, but it has resulted from the Daniel Morgan report, and there are still outstanding issues arising from that report, as referred to by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who is no longer in her place. Indeed, my constituent, a former serving police officer, approached me for support because he had a complaint in relation  to his treatment by the Metropolitan police while he was involved in the Morgan inquiry, and he has had no satisfactory outcome. He has now approached the IOPC. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can get some degree of finding for my constituent?

Kit Malthouse: I am hesitant to intervene in an independent process. Given the hon. Lady’s experience in policing, she will know that. If she thinks a meeting with me and her constituent would be useful once the IOPC has concluded, I would be more than happy to do so.

Meg Hillier: It has been a torrid time for the Met, but I am not so concerned about the Met; I am concerned about constituents of mine and those of us all who worry about policing. We had the report just last week about child Q. People in my constituency and elsewhere, and particularly black parents, black pupils and parents of black pupils, are worried about what the impact is on them. I know that the response has to be done in 12 months, and I worry that that will divert the Met to dealing with corruption, which obviously has to be dealt with. Can the Minister give some comfort from the Dispatch Box today that the issues of racism and inappropriate action against child Q will be dealt with much quicker than waiting for an IOPC report? Action needs to happen quicker. Tackling corruption has to happen, but not just that.

Kit Malthouse: As I said in the urgent question on child Q, I am hopeful that the IOPC will conclude its investigation on that matter shortly, and then we can quickly learn the lessons from that, exactly as the hon. Lady says, and hopefully ensure that that does not happen again. Just to be clear on the timeline, the Mayor has a statutory duty to respond to this inspection  within 56 days with an action plan. The IOPC  has put a 12-month time limit on implementing its 20 recommendations for change. Some may be done quicker than that, and some have already started. For example, my understanding is that inexplicably, the Met police is the only force in the country that does not have the software in place to monitor the inappropriate use of its systems. The work to implement that has started already, and I hope that will done before 12 months. Such is the importance of this issue, I am happy to commit to coming back to the House at some future point, when completion is in sight or done on all these 20 matters, and report that to the Members who are concerned.

Chris Bryant: A corrupt network of police officers, including senior officers, and journalists, including their senior management, private investigators and senior management at News International were all involved in the cover-up here. It is one of the biggest instances of corruption and one of the most painful ones we have witnessed in many years. Is it not time that we introduced into statute law a new offence of misconduct in public office? It is a common-law offence that is difficult to prosecute and to lay out the parameters of. We should put it in statute so that those who commit it and those who incite others to do it can be sent to prison.

Kit Malthouse: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman’s claims, not least because happily, as the deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner has confirmed,  this is an ongoing investigation. They have not given up, and they should not give up. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making in general. While a number of offences could be committed in a similar hypothetical situation, such as conspiracy, it may be the case that he has a point that we need to consider.

Ruth Cadbury: We have yet another report raising serious concerns about the Met, but also a number of questions that are applicable to all police forces in the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said. One issue that has been raised with me by a senior officer, and that applies nationally, is that officers who are found guilty of gross misconduct are often not only reinstated, but sometimes promoted. What is the Minister doing with the Met, police forces around the country and the complaints system to address this issue?

Kit Malthouse: I am sure the hon. Lady understands that where the office of constable is concerned, matters of discipline, dismissal or other punishments are effectively an independent process. The punishment is decided by panels that have independent legally qualified chairs. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the various decisions she has talked about. Having said that, we constantly pay attention to how the disciplinary process is impacting on the integrity of UK policing. If adjustments are required, as they were two years ago, we make them.

Clive Efford: Daniel Morgan was murdered 35 years ago, and this whole inquiry has been consistently bedevilled by police corruption. I do not think this report gets us to the bottom of the issue. We have to go much, much further. The report tells us that there has been a loose association with confidentiality and security for evidence, and that has been consistent over all these years that we have been trying to get to the bottom of this case. The Minister now has to accept that we have to have a root and branch inquiry. He has admitted himself that he has had to come to this Dispatch Box too many times to apologise for the Metropolitan police. This single investigation will not get to the bottom of it; we need something much more fundamental, such as an independent inquiry.

Kit Malthouse: As I say, HMI is looking at these issues more widely across the whole of UK policing, and we will learn some lessons from that report. But we   should not forget that the Commissioner of the Met herself has commissioned Dame Louise Casey to look at the internal culture of the Met, and that will give us some indications of where we should go next, if at all. Beyond that, similarly, stage 2 of the Angiolini review, which will look at this issue more widely, will be able to give us some information as to where we should go next, if at all.
This is a building picture. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very distressing, alarming and scandalous story that has run for far too many years. We have a duty in this House to try to get to the bottom of what happened and to make changes to ensure that it does not happen again, but that will not be a silver-bullet revelation; it will be a building picture, and this report is part of that. The report informs our work for now, and we will look to the future to see where we go next.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. While an apology is, I am sure, welcomed by the family, perhaps what would be more welcome is steps being taken to prevent this from happening again. Does he accept that there is a duty of care, and will he undertake to implement the necessary changes, which the report highlights in great detail, to ensure that the Met police continues to be a premium police service that is respected globally, as it has been for many years?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Gentleman asks his question very eloquently, and I completely agree with him. My primary concern in this affair is to get justice for the family of Daniel Morgan, who have campaigned for many years on this issue—a truly scandalous story that has involved many of us on both sides of the House. My second concern is to ensure that the Metropolitan police is fit to serve Londoners and that they can have trust in it. As somebody who, I must confess, has great affection for the Met, having worked for it in the past and seen the incredible things of which it is capable, I say to the officers of the Metropolitan police who want to know that they are working for exactly the organisation that the hon. Gentleman describes—one that is deeply respected across the world, not just for its ability to catch every murderer or to stop knife crime in London or to put more rapists behind bars, but for its internal conduct and culture of ethics and integrity—that that is what we have to be about.

Business of the House

Mark Spencer: I should like to make a short business statement following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his spring statement. Tomorrow’s business will now be:
Thursday 24 March—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill.
I shall make a further business statement in the usual way tomorrow.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow deputy Leader of the House.

Jessica Morden: I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the business statement.
Even after the changes today, under this Government Britain is facing the highest tax burden in 70 years. The Chancellor confirmed today that £24 billion of additional tax rises are about to hit the British people. He is raising taxes again and again. He proclaims that he believes in lower taxes, but at the same time he is actually hiking national insurance contributions.
What provisions has the Leader of the House made for the rescheduling of the two very important Backbench Business debates tomorrow—one on war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments, and the other on the impact of long covid on the UK workforce? Will he confirm when the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill will be published on the parliamentary website and copies made available in the Vote Office? What provision will there be for right hon. and hon. Members to amend the Bill?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. While it is a pleasure to see her at the Dispatch Box, I hope that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), makes a speedy return.
I am not going to get drawn into debate today—the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) seemed to wanted to try to draw me in—but I can say that I am very much aware that we are stealing the time tomorrow of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and I apologise to him. I will open a channel of communication to try to accommodate his business on the Order Paper as soon as possible.
The business motion tomorrow will set out how the Bill could be amended. My understanding is that the Bill is already published on the Government website.

Peter Bone: Is the Leader of the House able to tell the House how much time he proposes tomorrow’s business motion will provide for  the House to debate the Bill? It is good to know that we will be able to make amendments, but we need to know how to do that. Knowing the amount of time for debate will help Members to plan for tomorrow.

Mark Spencer: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will protect up to five hours for all stages of the Bill under the business motion. Second Reading will be brought to a conclusion after three hours, and remaining stages after a further two hours.

Owen Thompson: I echo many of the comments of the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), particularly as I have an interest in this. I was very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating to me the debate on the war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments, so I have a personal interest in when that might be reallocated. I am sure we will find out in due course when the Backbench Business Committee will have that time reallocated, because the House will be looking to hear about both of those very important issues.
I am encouraged to hear that there will be sufficient time tomorrow, but I definitely want to hear more about how the Bill can be looked at in more detail and be amended, because that is not yet entirely clear.

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As I say, the business of the House motion will be taken first thing tomorrow morning. It will set out how the Bill can be amended and the time allocation so that the Bill can be fully scrutinised in the House tomorrow.

Ian Mearns: Can I thank the Leader of the House for suggesting that he will keep us informed about any potential opportunities for the Backbench Business that has been removed from tomorrow? I would remind the Leader of the House that it is not my business but Back Benchers’ business that has been removed from tomorrow’s Order Paper. All I would ask is that the Backbench Business Committee gets enough notice, so that we can inform the relevant Members leading the debates, if we are to be allowed additional time outwith the normal Thursday sessions.

Mark Spencer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question, and I am very keen to try to accommodate him. My office door is open to him this afternoon if he wants to come and try to work that out between us. Let us have a conversation, as I am very keen to try to accommodate him as soon as possible.

Nigel Evans: Members interested in tabling amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill, which has been announced for consideration tomorrow, should contact the Public Bill Office as soon as possible.

Points of Order

Andrew Slaughter: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At 7.30 am today, without a court order, the chief executive officer of developer Fruition Properties, Mr Mani Khiroya, seized possession of the premises at 2 Scrubs Lane, NW10—covering my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler)—thereby evicting the City Mission church, its pastor Des Hall, and the nursery and food bank they have run for many years, serving thousands of our constituents. This brutal and despicable act echoes the predatory capitalism we have seen from P&O management, and punishes the poorest people in the middle of the worst economic crisis for 50 years. Can you advise me of how I can use the procedures of this House to highlight the plight of Rev. Des Hall and his congregation, and call to account the people who are destroying our community and its champions?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I think, to be honest, that he has already achieved his aim through the point of order, but the Table Office can advise him on what other procedures are available for him to take this matter further.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice, but as this has just happened again, I want to ask your advice about etiquette in the House. I always thought that Ministers addressed Opposition Members as hon. Gentlemen or hon. Ladies and Government Members as hon. Friends. It seems to me that I am constantly referred to by Ministers as an hon. Gentleman, and I am wondering if I am sitting in the right place. Would you give me some advice?

Nigel Evans: Well, all I can say is that to me you are an hon. Friend, sir. I hope that gives you some reassurance.

Short and Holiday-Let  Accommodation (Registration) Bill

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Karen Buck: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national register of short and holiday-let accommodation; to give local authorities powers to require information in association with that register; and for connected purposes.
Over the last 10 years or so, the opportunities offered by the digital economy have transformed the world, much of it for the good. The sharing economy that digitalisation has opened up—from ride sharing to home sharing—has brought many benefits, but deregulation often has its downsides, and the short let and sharing accommodation sector is no exception. From the heart of London, where Government deregulation after 2015 has contributed to an explosion in short lets, to coastal resorts and towns and cities the length and breadth of the country, short or holiday lets—often referred to generically by the name of the largest such company, Airbnb, but actually spreading far beyond it—are an issue that now requires effective management.
This is not, of course, about banning owners from renting out rooms or even their whole properties in line with how the sharing economy was originally conceived. Owners can earn valuable money, put empty space to good use and contribute to their local tourist economies, and all of this is welcome. To give praise where it is due, Airbnb and many short let hosts made a very significant contrition during covid and are now engaging over the Ukrainian refugee crisis, and I absolutely give them credit for doing that. But the sharing economy is not really where we are now, because increasingly we are dealing with a fast-growing industry that is highly commercialised and operating at scale. For example, a report in 2020 found that just 12.5% of Airbnb’s revenue came from the kind of home sharing let that was its original concept. In the face of that, we must take action to manage the sector constructively but effectively.
Three key themes now lead to the pressing need for action, including registration of the sector so that we know who is letting property, where they are letting it, and for how long. The first concerns the impact on housing supply—that is, places for people to actually live. It is clear that the short let tourist accommodation sector is now dominated by whole property lettings in many areas, including owners with multi-property listings. That suggests a significant shift into that market by individuals and businesses who would otherwise be in the residential lettings market, or making property available for sale.
Before the covid-19 pandemic, Westminster—my borough—had the highest proportion of entire homes listed on online short lettings sites, currently standing at 13,039. In his research, academic Tom Simcock of Edge Hill University found there had been a 423% increase in the number of multi-host entire apartment lettings between 2015 and 2019. That equates to just over 4,400 properties in London alone being let by hosts with multiple listings. Nearly four of out every five lettings in my borough were for whole homes, with a similar figure for Kensington, and more than 60% in Camden and Hammersmith.  Four out every 10 hosts in my borough listed multiple properties, with the numbers nearly as high in Camden and Brent.
This is, of course, a national issue, although some of the rules on planning permission requirements vary between London and the rest of the country. The House of Commons Library briefing from a few weeks ago referred to a 661% growth in short lets in Cornwall over just five years, and colleagues in towns and cities across the country, from York to Cambridge and from Plymouth to the Lake district, recognise that pattern. What it means in practice is that an ever growing share of properties in a number of locations are unavailable for anyone to live in. No one planned that, or discussed what the implications might be, but it has happened.
The second theme concerns the near impossibility of enforcing the rules that exist. The deregulation of London’s holiday let market from 2015 onwards not only made it substantially easier to let out property on that basis, but made the task of monitoring and managing breaches of the rules harder and costlier for local councils. There is ample evidence that some hosts have engaged in routine short-term letting for longer than the 90 nights a year permitted in London, despite Airbnb’s introduction of a 90-day limit on its platform. The BBC has been among those investigating the extent to which agencies and landlords have bypassed the controls introduced by Airbnb to deliberately flout the 90-night limit and engage in short-term letting activity above 90 nights without planning permission. Research carried out for the Greater London Authority estimated that more than 11,000 properties were let in breach of London’s 90-day-a-year rule, yet in 2019-20 my borough of Westminster issued only 49 enforcement notices.
Local authorities across London—and, I am sure, across other parts of the country—both Labour and Conservative, have faced significant challenges with the funding and technology needed effectively to regulate and enforce measures against short-term landlords in breach of the rules. London councils, the Mayor of London, and local authorities elsewhere, are left to pick up the pieces, spending scarce resources and frustrating residents who bring forward complaints about which local authorities are unable to take any action. Currently, more than 2,000 live short-term lets are being monitored by Westminster City Council alone for suspected breaches of the rules.
That leads to the third dimension of this issue, which is the extent to which short-term and holiday lets can contribute to nuisance, thereby requiring local agencies, from the police to local authorities, to devote time and money to responding on behalf of neighbours. Such nuisance can include, as my own council has indicated, crime and antisocial behaviour, prostitution, noisy parties, housing benefit fraud and drugs trafficking. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that there is a serious problem with criminality at the bottom end of the short let market. Excessive quantities of commercial waste are generated, which is often misclassified as domestic waste and not paid for. Another issue is regular unlicensed music events and noise. In the first six months of 2021, during lockdown, the council identified 83 short lets purely as a consequence of their being locations for unlicensed music events.
Unsurprisingly, the leader of Conservative-controlled Westminster—so this is a cross-party point—says that
“irresponsible short-term lets are making life hell for residents and causing a strain on council resources”.
My own casework confirms that. Residents in apartments and mansion blocks describe noise, nuisance and security fears as the place they used to call home now bears all the characteristics of a hotel, but with none of the safeguards.
Finally, the growth of the short-term let industry has created an uneven playing field in the hospitality sector, with traditional providers such as hotels required to bear the costs of business rates and corporation tax, and comply with regulations, not least in respect of health and safety, whereas short-term let owners do not. My own council points to one striking example: before the pandemic, Park West apartments close to Hyde Park had more rooms available for short-term letting than exist in the whole of the Ritz hotel. The Ritz hotel pays £2.27 million in business rates annually. The combined council tax bill of the Park West apartments that we know are used for short-term lettings is £92,686.
Here we are, seven years after the deregulation of the sector in London—five years after I last introduced a Bill to encourage regulation—and with a generally deregulated sector in the rest of the country, but still no action from the Government. We are promised a consultation on a registration scheme, but we need action. I stress again that I do not want a ban, because there are proven positives to short lets in respect of personal incomes and local economies, but we need a registration scheme so that everyone letting out their property in this way can be identified, and the minority with tenants with problematic behaviours can be held easily to account. As the Mayor of London has proposed, such a scheme would need to be nationwide and mandatory, to track properties being let across platforms, require proof of ownership and proper identification of the letting landlord. Those are not onerous requirements but they would make a significant difference.
Requiring all landlords to be registered in order to provide short-term lets would make recourse to justice easier for victims of crime. If the criminal landlord was not on the register, they would already be on the back foot. It would help ensure councils could monitor breaches of the rules and act swiftly to deal with noise, waste and other nuisance. We have waited too long for a response to this growing problem, and the Government need to act now.

Christopher Chope: I do not oppose the right of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) to introduce a Bill because I would defend that right to the utmost, but I wish to show solidarity with the people who are the targets of her Bill—those small businesses that engage in providing much needed holiday and short-term let accommodation. Conservative Members certainly do not intend to allow those businesses to be regulated in the way that she suggests.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke eloquently in the spring statement about the importance of deregulation and the reduction of burdens on small businesses. The hon. Lady’s proposals call for yet more regulation and interference in a whole sector of small businesses that provide short and holiday let  accommodation. The deregulated sector, as she was prepared to admit, responded flexibly and imaginatively to the covid-19 crisis, and that was because it was deregulated—it was free and flexible to do what was needed in the circumstances. Under the regulation she would like, that would not have been possible. When people were deprived of the opportunity of taking holidays abroad, the supply of accommodation in constituencies such as mine would not have expanded in the way that it did to meet the demand.
Small landlords are already fearful that the Government are intent on creating a national register of landlords, going back on previous assurances given to the House by a series of Housing Ministers—most recently the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) when she was a Housing Minister. She and other Ministers before her said that a national register of accommodation would be an unnecessary and costly additional layer of bureaucracy that would do nothing to improve the quality or quantity of such accommodation.
The hon. Member for Westminster North referred to what has been happening in the residential lettings market. It is quite clear that because of fears that the Government are going to introduce more controls in the residential lettings market, a lot of people have moved away from residential shorthold leases. They are fearful that the Government will effectively give retrospective security of tenure to people who entered into agreements to occupy that accommodation on the basis that the landlord could recover possession under section 21.
What are the unintended consequences of what the Government are already threatening to do? They are that the people who are adversely affected by that potential regulation are themselves switching to providing alternative accommodation. Instead of having an additional supply of rented accommodation available for those who want to use it, we are now finding that much more of the supply of rented accommodation is going towards holiday and short-term lets. That is a direct consequence, in my submission, of the senseless regulation that was brought in by the Government and of the threat of further regulation.
It is a principle that bad regulation begets the need for further regulation to deal with the situation that arose because of unintended consequences and good will. The hon. Lady and I served as officers on the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector. There is much we share in common about the need to deal with rogue landlords and so on, but I think we disagree about the best means of achieving that. How ironic, therefore, that her proposals suggest that local authorities should be given an additional burden and responsibility, when they cannot even cope with the existing burdens and responsibilities that this House, in much legislation, has placed on them.
We already have a scandal not just in the private rented sector but in the social rented sector. Council houses owned by local authorities have been let to   people who then sub-let them with impunity, thereby effectively taking them out of the social housing market. We also have a situation—it certainly extends to my constituency—where there are no council-owned properties but there are housing association-owned properties and the condition of quite a lot of those properties is a disgrace. The local authority does nothing to enforce against that. Local authorities cannot even cope with the current burden of regulation. The hon. Lady says there is an issue about enforcement. There will certainly be even more of an issue about enforcement.
In the end, the hon. Lady’s Bill will be an attack on good, responsible citizens and small businesses who are trying to help meet a need by providing the short let and holiday accommodation she describes. I am glad she praised Airbnb, because so many of our constituents benefit from going to Airbnb properties, both in this country and abroad. Those properties are now introducing more competition into this important sector. I do not wish to divide the House, as that would be a pointless exercise. We have finished all Friday business for this Session, but the hon. Lady will be able to bring in her Bill in the next Session. If she does, I look forward to opposing it vehemently.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Nickie Aiken, Tim Farron, Rachael Maskell, Lucy Powell, Matthew Pennycook, Tulip Siddiq, Daniel Zeichner, Fleur Anderson, Luke Pollard and Andy Slaughter present the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 290).

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill: Programme (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 24 November 2021 (Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 12 January 2022 (Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Nigel Evans: Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the Lords amendments.

Clause 2 - “Rent” and “business tenancy”

Paul Scully: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 20.

Paul Scully: Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I thank the shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—for their constructive and positive engagement during the Bill’s passage through the House. I have been pleased with the support for the Bill across both Houses. The Government made several amendments in the other place to ensure that the Bill is as useful as it can be. To that end, I believe that Members across this House will support the amendments.
I will begin with the Lords amendments that were introduced following extensive engagement with the Welsh Government; I am grateful for their positive and thoughtful discussions about the Bill. Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 8, 10, 15 and 17 were introduced to allow Welsh Ministers to have rightful control over devolved matters.
Lords amendment 1 defines Welsh and English business tenancies to allow the Bill to distinguish between business tenancies in later provisions.
Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for making a reference to arbitration could be exercised separately for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.
Lords amendment 4 removes a definition that is redundant due to Lords amendment 6 to clause 23.
Lords amendments 6 and 7 decouple the moratorium period from the period for making a reference to arbitration. They provide that the moratorium period will end six months from Royal Assent unless extended.
Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause that means that the consent of Welsh Ministers would be needed to extend the moratorium period for Welsh businesses in respect of devolved matters.
On the power in clause 28—which was previously clause 27—to reapply the Act, Lords amendment 10 enables regulations under the clause to be made just for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.
Lords amendment 15 requires the consent of Welsh Ministers to exercise the power to reapply devolved provisions in relation to Welsh business tenancies.
Lords amendment 17 inserts a new clause that provides that Welsh Ministers can use the power in clause 28 concurrently with the Secretary of State insofar as it relates to the reapplication, in respect of Welsh business tenancies, of devolved provisions—that is, certain moratorium provisions.
Following those amendments, I am pleased to say that the Senedd has agreed a legislative consent motion, for which I thank them wholeheartedly.
Separately, I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill. The Committee raised concerns about clause 28, which, as I said, was previously clause 27. The clause provides that the Act can be reapplied if there are further closure requirements due to coronavirus.
The Committee’s concerns were about the breadth of the power and the potential for significant alterations to be made for a reapplication. In response, Lords amendments 12 to 16 were introduced to limit the power’s breadth. As a result, the power would still allow for targeted modifications in order to accommodate new dates and make adjustments to moratorium provisions to take account of new timeframes. However, the amended power could not be used to change the operation of the arbitration process or policy.
I am sure that Members will agree that the Committee’s points are important and will be reassured by the appropriate limitations.
Lords amendment 11 ensures that the power can be used in respect of closure requirements imposed after the protected period set out in the Bill, whether that is before or after the Bill is enacted and whether or not the closure requirement has ended when regulations are made. It ensures that the power will be clear and robust for any new waves of coronavirus. Along with Lords amendment 9, it also ensures that the language of clause 27 is consistent with that of clause 4.
We have continued to listen to stakeholder concerns. When the Bill was in the other place, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors gave useful feedback relating to the exercise of the arbitration bodies’ functions to remove arbitrators on the grounds provided for in the Bill. The Arbitration Act 1996 gives arbitration bodies immunity from liability in relation to the function of appointing arbitrators; arbitration bodies were concerned that under the Bill they did not have explicit immunity from liability in relation to the function of removing them. In response, Lords amendment 18 clarifies that approved arbitration bodies have immunity from incurring liability for anything done in exercise of the function of removing arbitrators under the Bill, unless the act is shown to be committed in bad faith.
Similarly, we introduced Lords amendments 5, 19 and 20 as a result of stakeholder feedback submitted via written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. I am grateful to those who submitted evidence, as well as those who took the time to give oral evidence. Lords amendment 5 expressly sets out the effect of an arbitration award under the Bill, including how it affects the liability of the tenant and of a guarantor or former tenant. Lords amendments 19 and 20 are minor amendments to schedules 2 and 3 that clarify the application of certain provisions to former tenants and guarantors, including where an indemnity was given.
Lords amendment 2 is also a clarificatory amendment. It confirms that an obligation to close either the premises or the business at a certain time is regarded as a closure requirement.
I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received. Tomorrow, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, the measures that have affected the commercial property sector for  more than two years will come to an end. I will be pleased to see the measures in the Bill play their part in encouraging a return to normal market operation. To that end, I urge the House to agree with the Lords amendments.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Minister for the chance to raise issues with him earlier. I also thank colleagues in this House and the other place, as well as staff and all those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee.
As the Opposition have laid out here and in the other place, Labour has consistently recognised the need for a fair arbitration process to deal with the significant commercial rent arrears that have accrued during the pandemic. Our amendments were intended to strengthen and clarify the legislation, so that the new regime can be effective, accessible and affordable, and can fairly balance the interests of landlords and tenants.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have been clear that no otherwise viable business should face an overwhelming burden as a result of rent arrears that threaten its future. Likewise, commercial landlords must have access to clear mechanisms for recouping appropriate levels of arrears. The guiding principles in the process must ultimately be fairness for landlords and tenants alike, and the long-term interests of British businesses and jobs. I pay tribute to the landlords and tenants who have not waited for the Bill to make it to the statute book, but have used the time to work together in good faith in order to come to an agreement.
We should be clear that commercial rent arrears are just one of the challenges that many businesses face. With today’s announcement that inflation is at a 30-year high, many firms up and down our country face a cost-of-doing-business crisis. Labour recognises how difficult the past two years have been for businesses up and down the country. Sectors of our economy such as aviation, live events, travel and tourism have been hit particularly hard.
The Lords amendments, which are all Government amendments, help to clarify the Bill. In our view, they also give appropriate powers to the Welsh Government; we know that discussions were undertaken. The amendments improve the Bill and we support them all, but there are still a number of areas on which I would welcome clarity and assurances from the Minister on how the Government will move forward.
First, we continue to be concerned that the Bill contains no limits on the costs of arbitration. We cannot let high arbitration fees, or concerns that fees will be prohibitive, deter landlords and tenants from using the processes established under the Bill to achieve a fair solution. That would be a failure of policy and of planning.
We have previously called for a cap on fees, but the Government did not accept that proposal. I note that the Minister in the other place said a cap could be imposed if there was evidence that it was needed, but I should be grateful if this Minister would specify his intentions in that regard. Will he update the House on when guidance on the costs of the arbitration process will be published? Will he also confirm that Lords amendment 18—which relates to schedule 1—effectively  limits the liability of the arbitral bodies in the discharging of their duties under the Bill, which is what I understood from his comments?
Ensuring the quality of arbitration is important, and we have consistently called for the Government to explain how they will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of arbitrators to handle the volumes of cases under the scheme. What discussions has the Minister had with the arbitral bodies on their capacity, and on maintaining a sufficient number of arbitrators with the necessary skills and experience, and what quality assurance does he expect will be in place? It is important to have reassurances on these issues, especially in view of the limitation of liability that we have put into the Bill.
Finally on this issue, let me say that the arbitration process will not carry confidence unless the decisions are demonstrably fair and there is consistency of assessment. The Minister will know that business organisations had particular concerns about how the “viability of the business” would be established. Viability is referred to in some of the draft guidance published in February, but what review has the Minister undertaken of that guidance with stakeholders, and when will he finalise the guidance that will accompany the Act?
Let me turn briefly to the detail of the Lords amendments. The Bill, which applies largely to England and Wales, confers a number of powers on the Secretary of State in respect of Wales. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 10 are designed to ensure that different provisions can be made in relation to Welsh and English business tenancies. Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for arbitration can be exercised separately for English and Welsh businesses, which is an improvement, while Lords amendment 10 allows the Secretary of State to reapply the Act to both England and Wales, or to just one of the nations.
Similarly, Lords amendments 4, 6 to 8 and 17 give Wales increased powers to extend the moratorium period, which is the period in which tenants have protection against enforcement action by the landlord in relation to covid rent arrears. This must, of course, be a process that works for both England and Wales, but also, looking at the Bill overall, for Scotland and Northern Ireland, in so far as there are limited provisions that apply to those nations.
Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause requiring the Welsh Government to consent to any extension of the moratorium period for Welsh business tenancies under clause 23. It states that this moratorium period must be the same length as the arbitration period. Lords amendments 6 and 7 allow for the new clause specified in Lords amendment 8 by proposing that the current moratorium period should be six months long, rather than being tied to the arbitration period. This change allows for different moratorium periods to apply in England and Wales. We support those changes because we recognise that the Welsh Government should have a say in the extension of the moratorium period in Wales.
Lords amendments 12 to 14 were tabled in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 12 removes the Government’s power to specify certain parts of the legislation that would not apply if the Bill itself were reapplied. Previously, the Minister would have had the power to pick and choose which parts of the Bill were reintroduced or reapplied, but Lords amendment 13  ensures that the Government can make modifications to a reapplication of the Bill only if they are “necessary”. That is important for the role of Parliament and the Welsh Senedd.
Lords amendment 15 allows the Minister to reapply the Bill in Wales only with the consent of the Welsh Government. Lords amendment 14 allows different provisions to be made in England and Wales during reapplication. Labour supports these amendments, and it is important that the Government have listened to the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is a respected voice on these matters.
We are also pleased to see Lords amendments 5 and 19, which ensure that neither the tenant nor guarantors nor previous tenants are liable for any protected rent debt that an arbitrator has cancelled. Similarly, Lords amendment 20 ensures that neither the tenant nor guarantors nor previous tenants can be subject to winding-up petitions or bankruptcy orders for protected rent during the moratorium period. On Second Reading, I raised Labour’s concerns about ensuring that not only tenants but anyone liable for their rent are protected during the moratorium period, so I am pleased that these amendments support that protection.
Lords amendment 2 ensures that the provisions in clause 4, specifying closure requirements, apply to the closure of businesses and premises. On Third Reading, I raised concerns that businesses that no longer occupied the premises—because, for example, the pandemic had made a particular location unprofitable—would not be able to access the arbitration process. We are pleased to see this amendment, which ensures that the Bill explicitly allows such businesses to benefit from the provisions in this legislation.
In conclusion, the Lords amendments make some important changes to the Bill. They rightly increase the powers of the Welsh Government over this legislation, provide appropriate constitutional limits to the Government’s powers on reapplying the Bill, and ensure that tenants, guarantors and previous tenants are all protected during the moratorium period. However, Minister should provide further assurances in connection with these amendments—for example, on the cost of the arbitration process, and on ensuring that arbitrators apply the measures consistently across cases. Nevertheless, Labour supports all the Lords amendments. We support the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent and look forward to its implementation as soon as possible.

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution today, and for the way in which she has engaged with me and the Bill team. I also thank other Members across the House for their contributions. The Bill’s passage through both Houses has been a positive and collaborative process, and that is testament to its importance in supporting businesses in recovering from the ongoing impacts of the pandemic. The amendments made in the other place were made for good reason and will serve only to improve the Bill. Let me spend a couple of minutes trying to answer the questions that she has rightly and understandably raised.
The hon. Lady talked about the cost of arbitration. We want to ensure, as best we can, that arbitration fees are predictable and affordable. We have discussed this at  length at various stages of the Bill, with good reason. The Bill aims to support both tenants and landlords in resolving rent debt, and it is therefore important that the scheme remains affordable and accessible. Approved arbitration bodies will have the function of setting arbitration fees, and they have the expertise to set them at a level that will ensure that the scheme is affordable while also incentivising arbitrators to deliver the scheme in good time. In the interests of transparency and accessibility, the bodies must publish the details of the arbitration fees on their websites, so that the applicant will know in advance how much it will cost to go to arbitration.
We will monitor the affordability of the scheme by engaging regularly with arbitration bodies, as well as with tenants and landlords. We will be able to judge how things are going by those early cases going through the process. The Secretary of State has the power to cap fees, should they become unaffordable. That power can be used where necessary, but it cannot used prematurely, because we do not want to reduce the number of arbitrators available to act, thereby risking the delivery of the scheme.
The hon. Lady talked about guidance on costs and the viability of businesses. I assured the House that we would bring forward guidance for arbitrators, and we are looking to expedite that, so that it happens within a couple of weeks of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am pleased to say that we have published the draft guidance, which is on the Government website, in order to gather feedback from the arbitrators. That addresses viability clearly by setting out a non-exhaustive list of evidence that an arbitrator could have regard to in assessing viability. The final version of the guidance will be published shortly after Royal Assent. Viability is deliberately not defined, because of the vast array of different business models, both within and between sectors.
The hon. Lady raised questions about Lords amendment 18 and the immunity from liability for arbitration bodies. Let me confirm that Lords amendment 18 seeks to achieve consistency between the Bill’s function of removing arbitrators and that of appointing arbitrators. It ensures that arbitration bodies are immune from liability for the proper exercise of the function of removing arbitrators, just as they already are under the Arbitration Act 1996 for appointing arbitrators. I repeat that the amendment does not afford immunity from liability if arbitration bodies exercise their functions in bad faith. She has often asked how the quality, skills and experience of arbitrators will be ensured. Clearly, we want to make sure that this scheme is delivered in good time by skilled and capable arbitrators. So the method of approval that we have devised ensures that the scheme is high quality. The bodies must be approved by the Secretary of State. Only bodies considered suitable to carry out the Bill’s functions will be approved. The Secretary of State has a power to withdraw approval from a body that is no longer suitable. Approved arbitration bodies will maintain a list of arbitrators to carry out the scheme. The bodies have a statutory duty only to list and appoint arbitrators who are suitable by virtue of their qualifications and experience.
Finally, the hon. Lady talked about whether there are sufficient numbers of arbitrators and arbitration bodies. Capacity is a key concern, because we want to make  sure that this scheme can go through as quickly as possible, to give the landlords and tenants the certainty they need to proceed with economic recovery. So we will work with arbitration bodies to monitor and manage capacity. Following the intelligence from a similar scheme in New South Wales, in Australia, we believe that the central estimate of cases is now 2,800 in England and Wales, which is a significant reduction from the previous estimate we had of 7,500. I hope that goes some way to reassuring her about the capacity of the market. Clearly, we have also discussed how to manage capacity with the arbitral bodies as well. We have further developed our post-implementation review plan, which sets out how we will engage with stakeholders and collect data which will alert us to issues with capacity, should any arise.
I hope that that has answered the hon. Lady’s questions and that that puts us in good stead to get Royal Assent, so that we can crack on to get the tenants and landlords the certainty that they want. I commend these Lords amendments to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 20 agreed to.

Energy

Greg Hands: I beg to move,
That the draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.
The UK is the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We are continuing to advance sustainability through the Prime Minister’s “Ten Point Plan”, the net zero strategy, and the heat and buildings strategy. Currently, heating buildings and industry is responsible for 21% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonisation of heat is recognised as one of the biggest challenges in meeting our climate targets. The Government’s ambition is to phase out the installation of new natural gas boilers beyond 2035. Heat pumps are a proven scalable option for decarbonising heat and will play a substantial role in any net zero scenario. A UK market with the capacity and capability to deploy 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028 can keep us on track to net zero. However, the current UK market for low-carbon heat is relatively small and, due to that, these technologies are largely unable to compete on a capital cost basis with conventional heating options. Subsidy is required to mobilise and grow the market, and to bridge the cost gap between fossil fuel and low-carbon systems. The low-carbon heat market has been supported by the domestic renewable heat incentive, which will close to new applications next week, on 31 March 2022.
The boiler upgrade scheme will succeed that scheme, providing capital grants to support the installation of heat pumps and biomass boilers in homes and small non-domestic buildings in England and Wales. The scheme has a budget of £450 million over three years, as confirmed at the 2021 spending review. Grants of £5,000 will be provided for air source heat pumps and biomass boilers, and of £6,000 for ground source heat pumps. Biomass boilers will be eligible only in rural properties that are not connected to the gas grid, to minimise air quality impacts.
The application process will be installer-led and comprise two stages: applying for and redeeming a voucher. This will allow for a simple consumer journey, while maintaining certainty for installers about the availability of budget. To ensure consumer protection through the scheme, consumer consent will be sought as part of the application process. All participating installers must be certified by the microgeneration certification scheme or equivalent, and must confirm membership of a consumer code. That ensures that consumers are covered by schemes governing the products and their performance, as well as the quality of the installation and service they receive from the installer.
The scheme will support up to 30,000 installations in year 1, contributing 2.6 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent of carbon savings, and supporting 2,100 direct full-time equivalent and 1,800 indirect full-time equivalent jobs per annum over its lifetime. This supports the Government’s ambitions for levelling up, as we expect supply chains to be built and jobs to be supported across the regions. With the growth in demand encouraged under the scheme and wider market developments, we expect to  see cost reductions in the technologies over the three years. This instrument therefore sets out a provision to allow the Secretary of State to review and adjust grant levels in response to market changes.
Eligible low-carbon heating systems commissioned on or after 1 May 2022 will be entitled to support under the scheme. From 11 April 2022, installers will be able to open an account for the scheme with Ofgem. We expect the draft regulations to come into force and for grant applications to open by 23 May 2022.
The scheme established by this statutory instrument will increase deployment of low-carbon heating technologies, making crucial progress towards our climate targets. Investing in this scheme will reduce our exposure to volatile prices and protect British consumers. It will also grow the retrofit market, put downward pressure on costs and expand the supply chain ahead of the introduction of regulations and market-based approaches later in the decade.

Alan Whitehead: There is a great deal of agreement between us this afternoon on a number of the issues that the Minister raised about the role that heat pumps will play in the future low-carbon energy economy, including how many heat pumps we will need over the period. We need to ensure that as we transition away from heating systems predominantly run by gas—and in the domestic environment, by boilers—we can look forward to substantial replacement of those high-carbon heating measures by the low-carbon heating arrangements offered by heat pumps.
I hope hon. Members will bear in mind a very important figure that the Minister mentioned: 600,000 heat pumps to be installed a year by 2028. That figure derives from the Prime Minister’s “Ten Point Plan” and is an ambition for the number of installations that we should reach, which will continue after that point at 600,000 or so a year. That, among other things, will get us more or less in line with what the Climate Change Committee has suggested on the roll-out of heat pumps to ensure that our heat decarbonisation targets are realised. That is therefore a key figure, and it should be the yardstick against which this measure is judged.
We heard from the Minister that this is a £450 million scheme—£150 million per annum over three years. That is, by the way, a slight uprating from the initial consultation on what was the clean heat grant and now is the boiler upgrade scheme. However, that is what we have in the pot over the next three years for the installation of heat pumps. By fairly simple arithmetic, that translates—if we assume that the amount of grant per heat pump installation is £5,000—to about 30,000 heat pumps per year for those three years. That is 90,000 heat pumps installed under the scheme by the year 2025 so. So we then have three years to get another 500,000 or so heat pumps installed by 2028-29. On the basis of the report I mentioned, that is just not going to happen. Even if we assume that a number of heat pumps will be otherwise installed in new build properties—this scheme is predominantly about existing properties that can be retrofitted with heat pumps—we can see just how far from the stated ambition this scheme leaves us over  this period.
I am not kicking against the scheme as it stands, because it is good that we have some underwriting for heat pumps, but it is woefully inadequate for the task that we have ahead of us. It will get us nowhere near the target figure that I mentioned, and I think we should at least quadruple the scheme to get us on a trajectory that will actually get us to the 600,000 heat pump installations we have been talking about.
However, I am afraid that it gets worse for the scheme as it stands. As the Minister mentioned, the scheme is not just for heat pumps; it is also for biomass boilers—all of that is to be included in that £450 million cash limit. Unless no boilers are installed under the scheme, there will be quite a lot fewer than 30,000 heat pumps installed per year under the scheme.
Of course, the cost of Ofgem administration of the scheme—£10 million a year—is also included in the cash limit. By the way, I am glad that the Government have decided to curtail their interest in Canadian consultancies for energy efficiency schemes and to go with Ofgem as the administrator and manager of this scheme. However, I do wonder who will be responsible for regulating and reporting on the progress of the scheme. I think it may well be Ofgem, so I will be interested to see how that potential circularity plays out in how the scheme proceeds.
Furthermore, the money for the scheme is not new. The scheme replaces the domestic renewable heat incentive scheme. The Government have trumpeted how the scheme is going to turbocharge the installation of heat pumps, sort out supply chains and various other things, but it is essentially trying to do that with no new money at all. The RHI was based not on a levy but on taxpayer funding, and there was a line in the Red Book that allocated RHI funding historically. What was that line? Well, the cost of domestic RHI last year was £150 million—exactly what is available each year for this new scheme. In other words, the same amount of money is being turned over to carry out the same sort of activity that the RHI did. It is only that, as a result of £5,000 grants, we will apparently get far more heat pumps. It was not that the RHI did not support heat pumps—it did, and it also supported biomass boilers and solar thermal, which is not included in this scheme. The scheme also does not include hybrid heat pumps, which could make a real difference in terms of heating off-grid properties.
The interesting figures for installations in 2019-20 under the RHI were 10,400 air source heat pumps, 1,175 ground source heat pumps, and small numbers of biomass boilers and solar thermal systems—in other words, 11,500 heat pumps from a similar level of funding. I wonder whether the Government are as confident as they make out that we can do so much better than those numbers, even assuming that we get near to 30,000 heat pumps in the scheme, from the same amount of money as the renewable heat incentive.
I also question whether it is a good idea to pursue heat pumps in the way that this scheme is doing without having a concomitant drive to uprate the energy efficiency of properties that are likely to be concerned with the installation of heat pumps. That is not an issue with new house building, because new houses are likely to have good enough energy efficiency to take a heat pump, but I am sure that the Minister will be aware that heat pumps simply do not work very well in poorly  insulated homes, as they struggle to get the house up to its required background temperature if their long-term slow input is continually leaking out due to the energy efficiency of the property.
The predominant Government scheme for energy efficiency at the moment is the energy company obligation. ECO is moving very shortly from ECO3 to ECO4 at a similar sized budget to when it started—ECO3 at £750 million and ECO4 at £1.2 billion. That was the amount of money that was in ECO when it was first started, so the money in the ECO fund is also standing still. That fund also needs quadrupling in size in order to run alongside the proposal we are discussing, so that whole-house treatments can work for heat pumps. ECO4 also needs putting into general taxation—or at least the difference between the original budget and its new budget, so that the two schemes can work well alongside each other.
Finally, I have a small point concerning the run-on from the renewable heat incentive into the boiler upgrade scheme. The Minister mentioned the timetable by which the new scheme will come into place. At present, it looks as though there will be quite a hiatus, as no new orders under the RHI will be taken and they will effectively stop until the boiler upgrade process—the vouchers, the certification and various other things—comes in. We could lose up to six months of heat pump installation and face various other problems due to that dislocation, with the two schemes not running together seamlessly. It is also pretty bad for installers’ order books to have that hiatus in their order books between their activities under RHI and what they think they may be doing under the new boiler upgrade scheme.
The scheme should come in seamlessly alongside the phasing out of the RHI. I do not know whether the Minister considers it too late to look at running on the RHI a little bit until the new scheme is in place, so that it can have the maximum impact from the word go as it comes in and takes over.
However, as I have said, we will not be opposing this measure this afternoon because of the high degree of agreement that we have on the purpose of the scheme. What we do not particularly agree with the Government on is their low-key response to the imperative of getting those 600,000 heat pumps in by the end of decade. It apparently remains low-key in this scheme. I would be happy to hear from the Minister if he has other plans to get us further up to date with heat pumps in the future, but at the moment that seems not to be the case.

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for his constructive approach and his overall support for the scheme, which is most welcome.
I will deal with some of the points the hon. Gentleman raised. He is right on his first point: the ambition is to have 600,000 installations per annum from 2028. He is also right that there is £450 million allocated to the scheme over three years. It is a £5,000 grant, so he is right that that is a projected 30,000 grants per annum. I think his question, if I may repeat it, is how we get from 30,000 to 600,000 in the intervening three years between the end of the scheme and the start of the target. I think he asserted that that would not happen, so let me try to reassure him. The idea of the 600,000 figure, as I think  he knows, is not that the Government will come along in 2028 and provide 600,000 heat pumps per annum; the idea of the scheme for the next three years is to pump-prime the private sector to be able to provide the alternative that we need.
So far, the private sector has responded well. Some companies have said that they welcome the Government grant scheme that is coming in and believe it is enough to allow them to bring down the cost of heat pumps to greater equivalence with conventional heating systems over that time. We believe, therefore, that we are putting in the right amount of funding, while being prudent with public finances, to provide enough support to help us to get to that 600,000 per annum target in 2028.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether biomass boilers were also within the costings. They are, but we expect the number of biomass boilers to be relatively low. We expect the vast majority of the funding to go on heat pumps. He asked about the regulation of the scheme, and he is correct to assert that it will be up to Ofgem to oversee the scheme and the market. I would add that installers also need to be certified under the microgeneration certification scheme.
On the domestic renewable heat incentive, the hon. Gentleman is right that the scheme is closing to new applications next week, on 31 March, as I laid out earlier. It has been a successful scheme: up to January, 100,398 low-carbon installations had been successfully installed due to the DRHI.
The scheme has helped both to raise consumer awareness and understanding of low-carbon technologies, and to raise the quality of low-carbon heating installations, protecting consumers and improving their experiences. It has also supported the development of both product and installer supply chains. We believe that the boiler upgrade scheme will provide a simpler offer than the previous DRHI, and the grant model will directly address the up-front capital cost of low-carbon heat technologies, which is cited as a key barrier to deployment.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether heat pumps were effective in cases where properties are less well insulated. I can tell him that current evidence suggests that heat pumps are technically suitable for most buildings; around 90% have sufficient energy efficiency and internal electrical connection capacity to accommodate a heat pump system, which is encouraging.
I think the hon. Gentleman asked about the gap between the end of the previous scheme at the end of this month and this scheme coming into place in May. We consider that a staggered approach, with installer accounts created in April and applications starting in May, will offer the best overall level of service to installers and ensure that applications can be processed promptly. Installations commissioned from 1 April will be eligible for funding, subject to the other eligibility requirements being met. I hope I have answered all his questions; if there is anything I have missed, he can contact me afterwards and I am happy to write to him.
Heat pumps will play a substantial role in any net zero scenario, so we need to build the market for them now. This targeted support will help to grow the low-carbon heat supply chain to enable the proposed introduction of regulatory and market-based measures in the mid-2020s. Not only will investment in the scheme contribute to carbon reduction targets and increase consumer awareness  of low-carbon heating solutions, but the creation of high-quality jobs will help with boosting the economic recovery, levelling up across the country and ensuring that we build back better. I urge the House to support this measure.
Question put and agreed to.

Petition - Devil’s Point and Firestone Bay

Luke Pollard: Devil’s Point and Firestone bay are beautiful places to swim. As a keen wild swimmer myself, I have enjoyed swimming there many times. Given the ongoing sewage crisis, we need to make this an official bathing water so that we can be assured that it is safe, with regular water testing. The petition has been signed by 213 people in hard copy and by another 743 online.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport,
Declares that Devil's Point and Firestone Bay in Plymouth is a beautiful stretch of coastline that is of great public benefit to the local community and is frequently used to swim in; further that as it is not classed as a bathing water it does not meet the stricter environmental standards that it should; and further that it should be classed as a bathing water by summer 2022, with testing on water quality conducted all throughout the year.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign for Devil's Point and Firestone Bay in Plymouth to be classified as a bathing water, and for the Environment Agency to designate this without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002723]

Bradford City of Culture Bid

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Dines.)

Imran Hussain: It is a pleasure to be granted this Adjournment debate. I am proud to be able to speak today in support of Bradford’s bid to become the UK city of culture 2025.
Ask anyone who has lived in Bradford or spent any length of time there what they think about the district, and they will tell you of its beauty, its brilliance and its quirks, for there are few places quite like Bradford. They will always rave on about the rich, deep and diverse culture that Bradford has to offer. After all, it was the hills of Bradford that provided not just the home of the Brontë sisters but the backdrop to their novels. It was one of Bradford’s sons, David Hockney, who went on to become one of the world’s most influential painters. It is Bradford that brought up one fifth of the boy band One Direction, winner of numerous musical awards and accolades—Zayn Malik. It is Bradford that is the site of some of the most stunning architecture you will ever see, such as the Alhambra, St George’s Hall, City Hall and the Bradford Odeon, which is finally on the way to being restored. Months spent pestering Ministers have borne fruit and Bradford’s iconic Odeon is now well on the way to restoration.
There is also our vibrant TV and film scene, with Bradford becoming the world’s first UNESCO city of film in 2009, and with our “streets of heritage” buildings such as City Hall and those in Little Germany being stars in their own right in many historic dramas. One of particular interest, as I found out only this morning, is “Peaky Blinders”—a programme that I have never actually seen but am reliably informed has some resemblance to this place. I cannot confirm or deny that, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our National Science and Media Museum is the home of many treasured collections in the media world and an important part of Bradford city centre.
Nor can we forget the rich sporting culture that Bradford has in spades. Bradford City, winners of the FA cup, albeit a while back in 1911, have some of the most passionate fans you will ever meet. I was on the wrong side of that during the 2017 general election campaign when trying to cajole some of my supporters into a much-needed door-knocking session, only to be told in rather salty language where to go by every single one of them because they would much rather watch the final in which Bradford were partaking—quite rightly, I have to say. Bradford was also key when it comes to the founding of what became the great sport of rugby league. I know that intensely, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) is perhaps one of its biggest advocates, and I am convinced she will come in on that point.

Judith Cummins: I thank my hon. Friend first for securing this debate, and secondly for talking so passionately about our great city of Bradford. I have to say I do not think I am the biggest fan of rugby league in this place, because the biggest fan is Mr Speaker, who is not currently in the Chair. It is fantastic to be here, to intervene in this debate, to  champion the great city of Bradford and to talk about the brilliant and diverse cultural exports that make it the ideal candidate to be the 2025 city of culture. This is a timely debate, because 2025 also marks, importantly, the 130th anniversary of the founding of the Rugby Football Union in the historical heart of God’s own county of Yorkshire. I am glad that Mr Speaker is not in the Chair to hear that.
Bradford’s rugby league club, the Bradford Bulls, are one of our greatest cultural exports and are known around the globe. Given the return of the Bradford Bulls to Odsal, and the central role they play in our city and our district—not just in my constituency of Bradford South, but right across the UK and internationally—does my hon. Friend agree that the cultural icon of the Bradford Bulls is central to inspiring our local young people, providing exceptional opportunities for our communities and highlighting the essential role that sport and regeneration can play in Bradford’s city of culture bid for 2025?

Nigel Evans: What an intervention!

Imran Hussain: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, and she makes some excellent points, which is why it was an excellent intervention. She is absolutely right about the Bradford Bulls, and she continues to be a great champion not only for the district, but for them. The Bulls fell on hard times recently, but they have picked themselves back up, and they continue to be a fierce, resilient team in which the city has a great amount of pride, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue to champion them.
Talking about sport, we cannot forget that it was Richard Dunn who took on the great Muhammad Ali. While he might have lost resoundingly, his legacy lives on in a new generation of boxing stars, from Bobby Vanzie to Tasif Khan, and in the grassroots boxing gyms, which are an important part of our inner-city communities and act as a real hub for people of all  ages.
Cricket, rather unsurprisingly, is a popular pastime for people in Bradford, driven by south Asian communities who emigrated to this country and play at a professional level, including Bradford’s own Adil Rashid, who plays for the England side. While we may lack turf cricket pitches, which remains a serious issue in the city, many promising cricketers grew up perfecting their game on urban cricket pitches, also known as “the road outside your mum’s house when there was no traffic”. Many a great star was born on those roadsides.
I cannot get away with talking about Bradford’s culture without mentioning our food culture and our love of a good dish, whether it is cooked at home with friends and family or at one of our many outstanding restaurants. Let us be clear: Bradford is the curry capital of Britain, if not Europe, as demonstrated by the fact that Bradford’s curry festival is the one to beat. While I have to accept that our near neighbours, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), will often try to challenge us for that title, I think even he would accept that it is an utterly ridiculous notion that Leeds would come anywhere near Bradford when it comes to food.

Richard Burgon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Imran Hussain: I will on the point of food when it comes to Bradford and Leeds.

Nigel Evans: Here comes the challenge.

Richard Burgon: The biggest and perhaps only disagreement that I and my hon. Friend have had is about whether the best curry houses are in Leeds East or Bradford East. I congratulate him on securing this debate. Although obviously I prefer my home city of Leeds in general, Bradford is a fantastic place, steeped in diversity and culture—everything from the fantastic Waterstones bookshop in that wonderful gothic architecture, to the historic music venue the 1 in 12 Club, to the history of politics in the city. Of course, the Labour party founder, Keir Hardie, stood in a Bradford East by-election. Unlike my hon. Friend, he was not successful—in that sense, at least, my hon. Friend achieved more than Keir Hardie.
Will my hon. Friend accept these congratulations from Leeds in the spirit of breaking down boundaries? Bradford is a fantastic city. As one of its neighbours, I love to visit it, and I wish my hon. Friend and the whole city of Bradford all the very best in their application.

Imran Hussain: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour from Leeds. He is absolutely right. Bradford is the only city in the area—West Yorkshire and slightly further afield—that has been shortlisted, and all the support we have from our near-neighbour cities is very welcome. I thank him for his kind words.
In Bradford, we are slap-bang in the middle of the country, pretty much as far away from the sea as it is possible to be, yet I firmly believe that there is no better place to get a decent plate of fish and chips, whether it is from the award-winning Towngate Fisheries in Idle, Leeds Road Fisheries in the heart of Bradford, one of the other outstanding chippies across the district, or even down at the Eccleshill Mechanics Institute with Terry and the team—I have to confess that that is a secret haunt of mine for lunch.
We sometimes forget that culture means far more for people than just art, sport, film, TV and music; it is something that goes to the very core of who we are as people and communities. That is why I firmly believe that the richness of Bradford’s culture is best represented not by our art or even by our heritage but by the diversity of our district. After all, Bradford is one of the most diverse places in the country. We are home to someone from practically every corner of the world who has fled war, persecution or oppression, or simply came here to build a better life.
One of those people was my grandfather, who came to this country 70 years ago, like tens of thousands of others, as part of the generation invited to the UK to rebuild the country after the devastation of the second world war. Like many, he eventually settled here permanently to raise a family of his own. While he maintained his links with Pakistan and Kashmir, as many in the diaspora communities continue to do to this day, it was Bradford, before anywhere else, that was his home.
While the Pakistani and Kashmiri communities make up a large proportion of Bradford’s diversity, we are far from the only minority groups in Bradford. We are home to a sizeable Rohingya community, who fled genocide in Burma—interestingly, it is the largest Rohingya community in the whole of Europe—as well as to Bangladeshi, Indian, Afghan, Kurd, Slovak, Roma and many more communities, which come together like a bouquet of flowers to make Bradford the wonderful place it is.
Historically, Bradford has also had a large Irish population, as well as having been home to European refugees fleeing persecution on the continent, with Little Germany symbolising that historic time. Following the Kindertransport policy of the 1930s, Bradford became the home of many Jewish people who escaped the horrors of the holocaust, including my dear friend Rudi Leavor, who is sadly no longer with us.
Without being too big-headed, let me say that given the national, racial and religious diversity in Bradford, we likely have a claim not just to the title of UK city of culture but to that of real capital of the world. Tragically, some on the far right like to paint this rich diversity as a weakness, but let me be absolutely clear that it is anything but. It is our strength, and perhaps our greatest strength too, because Bradford has always stood united in the face of adversity and stood defiantly in the face of those who seek to divide us. This rich diversity has also given us much to be proud of, as it was these strong, resilient and vibrant communities that saw people from all walks of life—young and old, those of all faiths and none—come together to work together over the last two years to get through some of the most difficult times that we have all ever faced.
Because of our diversity, Bradford is also at the centre of demonstrating to others how to successfully turn integration into a powerful bond between communities, with Bradford Council for Mosques in particular acting not just as one of the leading institutions in the country for Muslims, but as one of the organisations to turn to when working across cultural and religious boundaries to bring people together.
Bradford’s welcoming nature is another key strength for our diversity and our culture, as there are no kinder, more generous or more welcoming people than the people of Bradford. Never is this more evident than in our proud status as a city of sanctuary, which I was proud to drive forward in a previous role in Bradford Council, that means Bradford will always offer refuge to those fleeing oppression, persecution and injustice from whatever part of the world they come. I strongly believe that the strongest point of Bradford’s culture is not the stunning architecture of City Hall or the rolling hills of Brontë country, but the fact that our arms are always open to people from around the world, particularly those fleeing injustice. Consequently, winning the title of UK city of culture 2025 would be a celebration not just of Bradford’s culture, but of the positive impact of diversity in our country today.
As the largest mill town in the north of England, Bradford was part of the original northern powerhouse, shipping wool all across the country and indeed all across the world. As a working-class city, our culture—both past and present—is rooted in our history. However, deindustrialisation over the years gone by has not been  kind to cities such as Bradford. Today, we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country, with around half of the children growing up in my constituency doing so in homes that face tough choices between heating and eating.
We have rampant health inequalities, which mean that Bradford residents have a higher propensity of preventable diseases such as diabetes, and that we live years less than residents elsewhere. We have poor levels of educational attainment, with children growing up less likely to outperform their peers across the region and elsewhere in the country, and we have widespread insecure, low-paid employment, with people in Bradford paid less for more hours. We have suffered from a decade of austerity and decades more of deindustrialisation, and we have also been forgotten and neglected by successive Governments actually, with the decision to snub Bradford on the Northern Powerhouse Rail line being the most recent glaring example.
Nevertheless, let me be clear: we are not beaten, we are not down and we are certainly not out. As home to one of the youngest, proudest and most vibrant populations in the whole country, we still have a wealth of potential lurking beneath the surface. All we need is that extra little push, which is why winning the title of UK city of culture 2025 would mean everything to Bradford and everything to the people who live there.
Some may consider the title of UK city of culture as just a bit of fun or just a bit of recognition, yet it is much more. As we have seen with past winners—including Hull, just down the M62, which is facing many of the same problems as Bradford—it has been transformative and has put them back on the map for a whole host of positive reasons. These past winners have seen considerable investment over their year of celebration, as well as in the years before and the years after, with increased visitor numbers, greater participation in cultural activities, and new jobs and new skill development opportunities. There has been a lasting legacy; the cities were granted new life and had a refreshed sense of energy.
An independent report has found that Bradford is one of the country’s most deprived and left-behind regions, and it has the most to gain from the Government’s levelling-up agenda, if that is seen through, as promised. If it won the title of city of culture 2025, the impact of the investment that would follow is clear to everyone. I sincerely believe that that point should make things much clearer for the Minister. However, the power of Bradford’s bid is not solely in our rich, diverse culture, or in the difference that winning the title of UK city of culture would make; it is also in the strength of the bid. Over the past two years, Bradford has supported a fantastic range of incredible projects, from Summer Unlocked, which hosted a programme of free cultural events including theatre, music, film and more, to the Bradford is #Lit festival, and the fantastic Festival of Lights, which drew more than 20,000 people to a Bradford city square last year. To top it all off, recently there was the spectacular Mills Are Alive show in Manningham. That is a small sample of what is to come when Bradford hopefully wins the title of UK city of culture 2025.
I will leave the finer details—Ministers can see things for themselves when they go to Bradford, as I hope they will—but I promise that Bradford will not hold back in its plans for 2025, and it will definitely not stray from our proud tradition of doing things differently. Bradford is beautiful; Bradford is brilliant. Bradford is a place  that people have to see, hear, taste, and experience for themselves. Bradford is the place that I owe everything to, and I could stand here and speak about it for hours—you will be delighted to know I am not going to, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ultimately, there can be no better place to award the title of city of culture 2025 than Bradford. It represents everything. I make my final plea to the Minister. This will make a difference. For all the reasons I have highlighted, Bradford is, and continues to be, the perfect candidate. Minister, this is our time. Give us that chance.

Nigel Evans: I cannot wait to visit.

Nigel Huddleston: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate about Bradford’s bid to become UK city of culture. He spoke eloquently and passionately about his city, of which he is so obviously proud, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate. He is a great champion of the city, and he will of course be delighted that Bradford was recently named one of the four places shortlisted for the title of UK city of culture 2025. It has been a competitive process, with all bidding teams submitting high-quality bids.
UK city of culture is the UK-wide quadrennial flagship competition by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, delivered in collaboration with the devolved Administrations. It invites places across the UK to set out their vision for culture-led regeneration. UK city of culture is about highlighting the role that culture plays in the heart of our communities; the hon. Gentleman mentioned that many times. It demonstrates that culture is for everyone, no matter who they are and where they come from. This is a key part of DCMS’s broader efforts to level up opportunity. It uses culture as the catalyst for investment, in order to drive economic growth and regeneration, promote social cohesion, and instil pride in places, making them even more attractive to live in, work in, and visit.
Derry/Londonderry was the first title holder back in 2013, and Hull won in 2017. This prestigious title has huge benefits; previous hosts have attracted millions of pounds in additional investment, created jobs, and attracted thousands of visitors to the area. Coventry is the current UK city of culture; its term finishes in May. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the city has developed an extraordinary, year-long programme of events that put culture at the heart of social and economic recovery. As a result of Coventry being awarded the title of UK city of culture, more than £172 million has gone into funding music concerts, public art displays, the UK’s first permanent immersive digital art gallery, a new children’s play area in the centre of the city, the new Telegraph hotel, and improvements to public transport. A further £500 million has been ploughed into the city’s regeneration since it was confirmed as the UK city of culture. More than £150 million of public and private sector investment was invested in the 2013 winner, Derry/Londonderry, and the 2017 winner, Hull, saw a 10% increase in visitor numbers during its tenure.
Bradford and the three other locations—County Durham, Southampton and Wrexham County Borough—were approved by the Secretary of State for Digital,  Culture, Media and Sport as the shortlist for the 2025 competition. That shortlist was based on advice given to the Government by the independent expert advisory panel, led by Sir Phil Redmond. The finalists were whittled down from a record 20 initial bids to eight outstanding long-list applications. The expert advisory panel will visit the four shortlisted places in May; then there will be a presentation from each of those places before the panel makes its final recommendation. The winner will be announced in Coventry in late May, so there is not too long to wait.
I am impressed by Bradford’s ambition and the way it has embraced the UK city of culture competition. I am sure that Bradford, along with the three other shortlisted places, will continue to robustly showcase its places and the strength of its bid to the panel. The UK city of culture is a proven model for culture-led regeneration, but there is no blueprint for success, and each city of culture has a different character and tackles new and different issues. The expert advisory panel is looking for a fresh narrative for the next UK city of culture—a strong story, a sense of identity and a vision for change. As the hon. Gentleman and others outlined, Bradford is a vibrant city with a rich cultural heritage and a young and diverse population. It has a huge amount to offer local people and visitors, and it is one of the few places in the world to have not one, but two UNESCO designations. Saltaire industrial village is a UNESCO world heritage site, and as the world’s first city of film, Bradford is also part of the UNESCO creative cities network. The area is also known for being the birthplace of the Brontë sisters and David Hockney, and for its strong cultural assets, such as the National Science and Media museum and the Alhambra theatre, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—as well, of course, for its beautiful countryside.
Alongside all that, the area has recently seen significant investment in the arts and cultural sectors. Between 2018 and 2022, Arts Council England national portfolio organisations in Bradford have received more than £7 million, and organisations in Bradford’s local authority have received £3.65 million through rounds 1 and 2 of the culture recovery fund. The libraries improvement fund has support for Bradford’s libraries, so that they can improve their offer. Bradford is also one of 15 UK-wide locations that StoryTrails, one of UNBOXED’s commissions, will visit this year. Bradford has been successful in securing some £20 million from the levelling-up fund to invest in the Squire Lane wellbeing and enterprise centre, and has received £4 million from the northern cultural regeneration fund to redevelop the Bradford Odeon, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I understand that Bradford’s bid is the outcome of lots of hard work delivered by the bidding team, and by the Cultural Place Partnership, which includes Bradford Council, the University of Bradford, Bradford College, representatives of the cultural sector and national funders, as well as the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and many others. The team are focused on using the competition as a platform to showcase Bradford’s strengths to the rest of the UK and the world, to improve opportunities for local people, and to increase access to jobs in the visitor economy and cultural sectors. There is an aim to add to the significant provision already in place and leave a  lasting legacy of increased visitor numbers, and to develop a more vibrant, sustainable cultural sector. There is also a focus on ensuring greater community engagement across the district, celebrating Bradford’s diverse communities and increasing public participation in cultural activities.
This is not just about who wins the competition. There are clear benefits to all places that bid. For the first time, the eight long-listed places from across the UK received a £40,000 grant each to strengthen their long application ahead of the shortlisting stage. That has helped to level the playing field, and has encouraged places to develop deliverable plans, even if they do not win the title. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wants all bidders to leverage the bidding process. We are committed to working with those who do not win, so that they can continue to forge  partnerships, develop culture-led change and strengthen cultural strategies; and we are working to signpost upcoming opportunities and funding. Hull, it should be remembered, was unsuccessful in bidding for the 2013 title, but it came back to win the 2017 title. Sunderland’s bid for the 2021 title created the momentum to form a new arts trust, Sunderland Culture. Paisley, which also bid for the 2021 title, has since hosted a range of major events, including UNBOXED’S About Us, earlier this month.
I applaud Bradford’s dedication to winning the UK city of culture 2025 competition. I wish Bradford and, of course, the other three shortlisted places—County Durham, Southampton and Wrexham County Borough—the very best of luck for the remainder of the competition.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.